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

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Ernet (India)

ITA - 538 / 2022HC Delhi19 Dec 2022

…is commercial in nature. 8. Counsel for the parties inform us that the issue has attained quietus by virtue of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC). 9. In these circumstances, the above-captioned appeals filed by the revenue are closed. 10. Consequently, the orders passed by the Tribunal are sustained. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J DECEMBER 19, 2022 aj Click here to check corrigendum, if any ITA 538/2022 & connected matters pa…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Ernet (India)

ITA - 539 / 2022HC Delhi19 Dec 2022

…is commercial in nature. 8. Counsel for the parties inform us that the issue has attained quietus by virtue of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC). 9. In these circumstances, the above-captioned appeals filed by the revenue are closed. 10. Consequently, the orders passed by the Tribunal are sustained. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J DECEMBER 19, 2022 aj Click here to check corrigendum, if any ITA 538/2022 & connected matters pa…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Ernet (India)

ITA - 541 / 2022HC Delhi19 Dec 2022

…is commercial in nature. 8. Counsel for the parties inform us that the issue has attained quietus by virtue of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC). 9. In these circumstances, the above-captioned appeals filed by the revenue are closed. 10. Consequently, the orders passed by the Tribunal are sustained. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J DECEMBER 19, 2022 aj Click here to check corrigendum, if any ITA 538/2022 & connected matters pa…

Cuticon Tn 2019, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3287/CHNY/2019[00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 12ASection 13(9)

…nd, submitted that legal position has substantially been altered after the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in bunch of appeals titled as New Noble Educational Society (143 Taxmann.com 276) as well as in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (144 Taxmann.com 78). During hearing, it was point of agreement that considering the recent decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court on the subject, the matter may be set aside to Ld. CIT(E) for reconsideration. 3. In view of the foregoing, it is deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and the matter of registration is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for r…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Oreganisation for the Rural Women and Youth Development

Appeal is disposed of and

ITA/23/2019HC Orissa24 Nov 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

For Appellant: Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate
Section 5

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Tax Appeal No.23 of 2019 With I.A. No. 1466 of 2021 ----- The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Patna … … Appellant Versus M/s Jharkhand State Cricket Association … … Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate Mr. Anurag Vijay, Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate ------ Order No. 09/Dated 16th July,…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd

ITA/32/2018HC Orissa14 Jul 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 3, Chennai vs. M/S Chennai Auto Ancilliary Industrtial Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Chennai

ITA 448/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.447/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.448/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (E) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial Ward-3, Infrastructure Upgradation Company बनाम/ Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 79/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.446/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Cross Objection No. 80/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.447/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Cross Objection No. 81/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.448/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Income Tax Officer (E) Industrial Infrastructure Ward-3, बनाम/ Upgradation Company Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Co Nos. 79 To 81/Chny/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane - CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…t findings were as under: - 4.6. As far as the collection of fees from the member-units is concerned, is relevant to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs ACIT(Exemptions) [(393 ITR 323) (Guj)j which are as follows: Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and mare particularly, considering the fact that the assessee in a statutory body - Urban Development Authority constituted under the provisions of the Act, constituted to carry on! the object and purpose of Town Planning Act and collects regulatory fees for the objec…

Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 3, Chennai vs. M/S Chennai Auto Ancilliary Industrtial Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Chennai

ITA 447/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.447/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.448/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (E) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial Ward-3, Infrastructure Upgradation Company बनाम/ Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 79/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.446/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Cross Objection No. 80/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.447/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Cross Objection No. 81/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.448/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Income Tax Officer (E) Industrial Infrastructure Ward-3, बनाम/ Upgradation Company Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Co Nos. 79 To 81/Chny/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane - CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…t findings were as under: - 4.6. As far as the collection of fees from the member-units is concerned, is relevant to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs ACIT(Exemptions) [(393 ITR 323) (Guj)j which are as follows: Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and mare particularly, considering the fact that the assessee in a statutory body - Urban Development Authority constituted under the provisions of the Act, constituted to carry on! the object and purpose of Town Planning Act and collects regulatory fees for the objec…

Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 3, Chennai vs. M/S Chennai Auto Ancilliary Industrtial Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Chennai

ITA 446/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.447/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.448/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (E) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial Ward-3, Infrastructure Upgradation Company बनाम/ Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 79/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.446/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Cross Objection No. 80/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.447/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Cross Objection No. 81/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.448/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Income Tax Officer (E) Industrial Infrastructure Ward-3, बनाम/ Upgradation Company Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Co Nos. 79 To 81/Chny/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane - CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…t findings were as under: - 4.6. As far as the collection of fees from the member-units is concerned, is relevant to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs ACIT(Exemptions) [(393 ITR 323) (Guj)j which are as follows: Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and mare particularly, considering the fact that the assessee in a statutory body - Urban Development Authority constituted under the provisions of the Act, constituted to carry on! the object and purpose of Town Planning Act and collects regulatory fees for the objec…

Shri Vijay Makhija S/O Shri Govind Ram Makhija vs. The Principal Commissioner of Tax-I

ITA/81/2019HC Rajasthan29 Jul 2020

Bench: SABINA,PRAKASH GUPTA

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Chaudhary and Mr. Vijay ChawlaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr
Section 2(15)Section 260ASection 3Section 38Section 38(1)Section 72

…that the assessee Authority is involved in the commercial activity with a motive to earn profit. He would further submit that it is a case where without there being any basis, the Assessing Officer by suggesting amendment in Sections 1 (2023) 4 SCC 561 Page 9 of 20 (Tax Case No.81/2019) 10(23C), 13 and 143 of the IT Act, directed addition of ₹ 21,62,94,042/- which has rightly been set-aside by the appellate authority – CIT (Appeals) and further rightly been affirmed by the ITAT and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed by answering the substantial questions of law in favour of th…