ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

143 Taxmann.com 278Supreme Court of India2022#190 most cited

What is ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority authority for?

If activities for the advancement of general public utility are carried on as a business, income from such activities is not exempt under Section 11, even if the profits are utilized for the main charitable object. The argument that profits from general public utility activities can be ploughed back to charity to maintain exemption is not a good law.

390

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 372,241 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority · 143 Taxmann.com 278 · Section 2(15) · Section 11 · general public utility · GPU as business · charitable purpose · income exemption · proviso to Section 2(15) · business income for charity · ploughed back income · Section 12A

Sections most often in play

Section 2(15)Section 11Section 143(3)Section 12ASection 12Section 13(8)Section 12AASection 147

Issues it is cited on

section 13(8)section 10(20a)advancement of general public utilityproviso to section 2(15)section 11(4)section 11(4a)section 2(13)section 11(6)section 10(20)section 12aa(3)section 10(46)section 10(23)

Judgments citing ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai vs. All India Gem and Jewellery Domestic Council, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4652/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina
Section 11Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. CIT (Exemption)-1(1), All India Gem And Jewellery 6th floor, MTNL Building Domestic Council, Vs. Cumballa Hill, Dr. GD 1501 & 1502, Panchratna CHS Deshmukh Marg (Pedder Ltd. P Marg, Opera House, Road), Charni Road (East), Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400 004. PAN NO. AAFCA 3001 P Appellant Respondent : Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR : 01/10/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 24/12/20…

Innovision Limited, Delhi vs. Commisioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1645/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Innovision Limited, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1/209, First Floor, (Appeals), Delhi Cantt. Sadar Bazar, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aakcs4802P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Gouranga Chandra Das, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Innovision Limited, Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1/209, First Floor, (Appeals), Delhi Cantt. Sadar Bazar, Delhi New Delhi PAN:AAKCS4802P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Gouranga Chandra Das, Sr. DR Date of hearing 10.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.12.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nati…

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 513/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R
Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

…nly question that remains is that whether the assessee is entitled to benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act or not, which has been denied by the ld. AO. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [TS-814-SC-2022][2022] 449 ITR 1 (SC) has categorically considered this aspect. The brief facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was the correct interpretation of the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act introduced by the amendment w.e.f. 1.4.2009. The issue was with respect to the residual purpose included by the definition is “advancement of any other object of general public…

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 512/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

…tted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has grossly erred in following the earlier decision of this Tribunal dated 11.10.2021which is incorrect. The issue is well settled by the Apex Court decision in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority reported in (2022) 449 ITR 1 vide judgment dated 19/10/2022. Further, the ld. AR submitted that the registration u/s 12A of the Act had been restored by the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court by order dated 12.1.2015. Therefore, the assessee is at present registered u/s 12A of the Act. 8. The ld. D.R. on the other hand, vehemently supported the orders of the authorities…

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Sector 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 339/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

…ture of its welfare objects formed the very basis on which the exemption under Section 10(46) was granted by the Central Government. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC) - recognized that Section 10(46) was enacted to specifically exempt income of statutory authorities performing non-commercial public functions. The copy of the Order form part of the Paperbook (Volume-I) from Page No. 50-141. Relevant extract is reproduced below: “182.The term "commercial" is closely similar to, if not identical, with the phra…

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

…ure of its welfare objects formed the very basis on which the exemption under Section 10(46) was granted by the Central Government. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 1 17 (SC) - recognized that Section 10(46) was enacted to specifically exempt income of statutory authorities performing non-commercial public functions. The copy of the Order form part of the Paperbook (Volume-I) from Page No. 50-141. Relevant extract is reproduced below: “182.The term "commercial" is closely similar to, if not identical, with the…

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. CIT(Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 63/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

…ure of its welfare objects formed the very basis on which the exemption under Section 10(46) was granted by the Central Government. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC) - recognized that Section 10(46) was enacted to specifically exempt income of statutory authorities performing non-commercial public functions. The copy of the Order form part of the Paperbook (Volume-I) from Page No. 50-141. Relevant extract is reproduced below: “182.The term "commercial" is closely similar to, if not identical, with the ph…

Shimoga Urban Development Authority, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Shimoga

In the result all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2120/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2118-2120/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shimoga Urban Development The Income Tax Officer, Authority, Shimoga. Ward-05, Shimoga Vs. PAN: AAALS2328H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Balram R Rao, Advocate : Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR Revenue by Date of Hearing : 03-12-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05-12-2025 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT 1. ITA No. 2118-2120/Bang/2024 are for assessment year 2016-17, 2017-18…

Shimoga Urban Development Authority, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Shimoga

In the result all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2119/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2118-2120/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shimoga Urban Development The Income Tax Officer, Authority, Shimoga. Ward-05, Shimoga Vs. PAN: AAALS2328H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Balram R Rao, Advocate : Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR Revenue by Date of Hearing : 03-12-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05-12-2025 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT 1. ITA No. 2118-2120/Bang/2024 are for assessment year 2016-17, 2017-18…

Shimoga Urban Development Authority, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Shimoga

In the result all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2118/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2118-2120/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shimoga Urban Development The Income Tax Officer, Authority, Shimoga. Ward-05, Shimoga Vs. PAN: AAALS2328H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Balram R Rao, Advocate : Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR Revenue by Date of Hearing : 03-12-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05-12-2025 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT 1. ITA No. 2118-2120/Bang/2024 are for assessment year 2016-17, 2017-18…

Federation of European Business in India, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 2446/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrafederation Of European Commissioner Of Income Business In India, Tax (Exemption), Aiwan-E-Ghalib Complex, Vs. E-2, Civic Centre, Mata Sundari Lane, Minto Road, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 Pan: Aafcf5934N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amol Sinha, Advocate Sh. Ankit Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 15/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/12/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi [‘Cit(E)’].

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 8

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Federation of European Commissioner of Income Business in India, Tax (Exemption), Aiwan-E-Ghalib Complex, Vs. E-2, Civic Centre, Mata Sundari lane, Minto Road, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 PAN: AAFCF5934N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Amol Sinha, Advocate Sh. Ankit Kumar, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 15/10/2025 Date of Pronouncement 03/12/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM This…

The Indus Entrepreneurs, Hyderabad vs. DCIT - Exemption Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 559/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.559/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 The Indus Entrepreneurs, The Dcit-(Exemption), Vs. Hyderabad-500084. Circle-1(1), Pan Aabat0359F Hyderabad – 500 029. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri M V Swaroop, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Mookambikeyan S. Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri M V Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Mookambikeyan S. Sr. AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…activities which are in relation to rendering services to trade, commerce or business per se cannot be as GPU activities. Further, even in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemptions) vs., Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 449 ITR 389 (SC) while examining the definition of ‘Charitable Purpose’ in light of GPU activities, it was clearly held that, “the predominant purpose of the institution should be considered”. In the present case, the appellant society being engaged in the activities of managing, training and education to entrepreneurs, the same falls under the definition of…

Thriveni Sainik Mining Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1379/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Thriveni Sainik Mining Private DCIT, Limited, Circle-3(1), 7th Floor, Corporate Tower, Vs. Gurgaon. Ambience Mall, NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. PAN-AAFCT6119D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. & Ms. Sakshi Rastogi, Adv. Department by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 27.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 21.11.2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of th…

Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi vs. ACIT, (Exemptions) Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2888/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj. CAFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 40A(9)

…authority, as per section 2(15) of the Page 3 of 6 [A.Y. 2016-17] Delhi Dev. Authority Vs. ACIT[E] Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] is within 20% as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 449 ITR 1 be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to consider the same afresh. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of ITAT in Jhansi Development Authority ITA Nos. 2689 to 2693 of 2013 order dated 8.07.2024 and prayed for setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining the same…

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Hapur Pilukhuwa Development Authority, Hapur

ITA 3102/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Vs Hapur Pilukhuwa Development Cgo-2, Hapur Chungi, Authority, Preetvihar, Delhi Road, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Hapur, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaalh0051L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr. Kapil Geol, Adv Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm:

Section 11Section 2Section 2(15)

…018 dated 12.03.2025. In these cases being similar type of organization under the same Act, the issue was decided in assessee’s favour after considering the decision in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDU) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court viz. 449 ITR 1 & 449 ITR 389. 5. As regards second issue relating to amount credited to infrastructure development fund is concerned, it is submitted that the same issue is also covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 4125/Del/2017 vide order dated 04.02.2022 relevant to assessment year 2012-13. It is further submitted that recen…

Income Tax Officer Exemptions 2(4), Mumbai vs. The Chembur Gymkhana, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 491/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/MUM/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer v/s. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6th Floor, Mumbai 40071 MTNL Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAATT4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद" िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Assessee by: Shri Vipul Joshi Shri Yogesh Kumar, Sr. DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by:…

Income Tax Officer Exemptions 2(4), Mumbai vs. The Chembur Gymkhana, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 48/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/MUM/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer v/s. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6th Floor, Mumbai 40071 MTNL Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAATT4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद" िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Assessee by: Shri Vipul Joshi Shri Yogesh Kumar, Sr. DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by:…

Income Tax Officer Exemptions 2(4), Mumbai vs. The Chembur Gymkhana, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 47/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/MUM/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer v/s. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6th Floor, Mumbai 40071 MTNL Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAATT4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद" िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Assessee by: Shri Vipul Joshi Shri Yogesh Kumar, Sr. DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by:…

Income Tax Officer Exemptions 2(4), Mumbai vs. The Chembur Gymkhana, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 46/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/MUM/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer v/s. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6th Floor, Mumbai 40071 MTNL Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAATT4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद" िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Assessee by: Shri Vipul Joshi Shri Yogesh Kumar, Sr. DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by:…

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 237/Chd/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit, बनाम Circle 2, Vs. Exemption, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.337 To 339/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemption, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 63/Chd/2021 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29-30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemptions, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, Sh. Ashok Goyal, Ca & Sh. Sifatfreet Singh, Ca राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) For Different Assessment Years, As Per The Details Given Below: S.No.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

…ture of its welfare objects formed the very basis on which the exemption under Section 10(46) was granted by the Central Government. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC) - recognized that Section 10(46) was enacted to specifically exempt income of statutory authorities performing non-commercial public functions. The copy of the Order form part of the Paperbook (Volume-I) from Page No. 50-141. Relevant extract is reproduced below: “182.The term "commercial" is closely similar to, if not identical, with the phra…