Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. ACIT

396 ITR 323High Court2017#999 most cited

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

Development authorities can continue to be regarded as existing for a 'Charitable Purpose' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, even after the introduction of the proviso to that section. The contention that such authorities automatically lose their charitable status due to the proviso is incorrect.

108

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. ACIT · Section 2(15) proviso · charitable purpose · advancement of general public utility · development authority exemption · Section 11 benefits · interpretation of Section 2(15) · cancellation of registration

Also reported as

287 CTR 473

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 12Section 10(20A)Section 13(8)Section 12ASection 250Section 11(1)(a)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)section 13(8)advancement of general public utilityproviso to section 2(15)section 10(46)section 10(20)cancellation of registrationsection 58section 11(4a)section 2(15)section 55section 13(3)

Judgments citing Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. ACIT

DCIT(E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI SHANMUKHANANDA FINE ARTS & SANGEETHA SABHA, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals filed by assessee Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 9385/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2026

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…it is clear that it was incurring expenditure in the fields of education and medical relief. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of section 11.Here, we would like to refer to the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (396 ITR 323) of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court wherein the court has held as under:- "The introduction of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by virtue of the Finance Act, 2008 was directed to prevent the unholy practice of pure trade, commerce and business entities from masking their activities and portraying them in the garb of an act…

DCIT(E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI SHANMUKHANANDA FINE ARTS & SANGEETHA SABHA, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals filed by assessee Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 9384/MUM/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2026

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…it is clear that it was incurring expenditure in the fields of education and medical relief. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of section 11.Here, we would like to refer to the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (396 ITR 323) of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court wherein the court has held as under:- "The introduction of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by virtue of the Finance Act, 2008 was directed to prevent the unholy practice of pure trade, commerce and business entities from masking their activities and portraying them in the garb of an act…

ACIT(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1823/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1822 & 1823/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2016-2017 & 2018-2019)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250

…ainst the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue under consideration is now covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) vs. ACIT (Exemptions) 396 ITR 323, in which the Supreme Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee (Jamnagar Area Development) was also one of the parties on this issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has now finally decided this matter in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, it wo…

ACIT(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1822/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1822 & 1823/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2016-2017 & 2018-2019)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250

…ainst the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue under consideration is now covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) vs. ACIT (Exemptions) 396 ITR 323, in which the Supreme Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee (Jamnagar Area Development) was also one of the parties on this issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has now finally decided this matter in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, it wo…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 242/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA
Section 11Section 2(15)

…g for "Charitable Purpose" after introduction of the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act and such approach has been held to be incorrect by the various judicial forums in the following cases: (i) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) (2017) 396 ITR 323 (Guj.); (ii) Jaipur Development Authority Vs. CIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 25 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) Haridwar Development Authority Vs. CIT (2015) 57 taxmann.com 6 (Delhi - Trib.) (iv) CIT Vs. Lucknow Development Authority (2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (Allahabad) (v) CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority (2017) 79 Taxmann 361 (Raj.). 6. The Tribunal al…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 241/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA
Section 11Section 2(15)

…g for "Charitable Purpose" after introduction of the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act and such approach has been held to be incorrect by the various judicial forums in the following cases: (i) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) (2017) 396 ITR 323 (Guj.); (ii) Jaipur Development Authority Vs. CIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 25 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) Haridwar Development Authority Vs. CIT (2015) 57 taxmann.com 6 (Delhi - Trib.) (iv) CIT Vs. Lucknow Development Authority (2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (Allahabad) (v) CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority (2017) 79 Taxmann 361 (Raj.). 6. The Tribunal al…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS)CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 240/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA
Section 11Section 2(15)

…g for "Charitable Purpose" after introduction of the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act and such approach has been held to be incorrect by the various judicial forums in the following cases: (i) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) (2017) 396 ITR 323 (Guj.); (ii) Jaipur Development Authority Vs. CIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 25 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) Haridwar Development Authority Vs. CIT (2015) 57 taxmann.com 6 (Delhi - Trib.) (iv) CIT Vs. Lucknow Development Authority (2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (Allahabad) (v) CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority (2017) 79 Taxmann 361 (Raj.). 6. The Tribunal al…

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY ,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2596/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: D.N. Joshi & Co, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…ng for "Charitable Purpose" after introduction of the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act and such approach has been held to be incorrect by the various judicial forums in the following cases: (i) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) (2017) 396 ITR 323 (Guj.); (ii) Jaipur Development Authority Vs. CIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 25 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) Haridwar Development Authority Vs. CIT (2015) 57 taxmann.com 6 (Delhi - Trib.) (iv) CIT Vs. Lucknow Development Authority (2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (Allahabad) (v) CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority (2017) 79 Taxmann 361 (Raj.). 6. The Tribunal al…

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY ,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2595/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: D.N. Joshi & Co, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…ng for "Charitable Purpose" after introduction of the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act and such approach has been held to be incorrect by the various judicial forums in the following cases: (i) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) (2017) 396 ITR 323 (Guj.); (ii) Jaipur Development Authority Vs. CIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 25 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) Haridwar Development Authority Vs. CIT (2015) 57 taxmann.com 6 (Delhi - Trib.) (iv) CIT Vs. Lucknow Development Authority (2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (Allahabad) (v) CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority (2017) 79 Taxmann 361 (Raj.). 6. The Tribunal al…

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY ,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2594/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: D.N. Joshi & Co, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…ng for "Charitable Purpose" after introduction of the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act and such approach has been held to be incorrect by the various judicial forums in the following cases: (i) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) (2017) 396 ITR 323 (Guj.); (ii) Jaipur Development Authority Vs. CIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 25 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) Haridwar Development Authority Vs. CIT (2015) 57 taxmann.com 6 (Delhi - Trib.) (iv) CIT Vs. Lucknow Development Authority (2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (Allahabad) (v) CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority (2017) 79 Taxmann 361 (Raj.). 6. The Tribunal al…

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY ,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2593/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: D.N. Joshi & Co, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…ng for "Charitable Purpose" after introduction of the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act and such approach has been held to be incorrect by the various judicial forums in the following cases: (i) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) (2017) 396 ITR 323 (Guj.); (ii) Jaipur Development Authority Vs. CIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 25 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) Haridwar Development Authority Vs. CIT (2015) 57 taxmann.com 6 (Delhi - Trib.) (iv) CIT Vs. Lucknow Development Authority (2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (Allahabad) (v) CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority (2017) 79 Taxmann 361 (Raj.). 6. The Tribunal al…

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1073/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…137 taxmann.com 504 (Gujarat) had held as under: “4. The substantial questions of law raised are no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Asstt. CIT(Exemption) [2017] 83 taxmann.com 78/396 ITR 323 (Gujarat). In view of the aforesaid, present Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” Therefore, if the intention of Hon’ble Supreme Court was the same as put forward by the Ld. CIT(DR), the case of Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority for AY 2015-16 should have been remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer to test whether Gandhinagar Urba…

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1072/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…137 taxmann.com 504 (Gujarat) had held as under: “4. The substantial questions of law raised are no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Asstt. CIT(Exemption) [2017] 83 taxmann.com 78/396 ITR 323 (Gujarat). In view of the aforesaid, present Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” Therefore, if the intention of Hon’ble Supreme Court was the same as put forward by the Ld. CIT(DR), the case of Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority for AY 2015-16 should have been remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer to test whether Gandhinagar Urba…

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1071/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…137 taxmann.com 504 (Gujarat) had held as under: “4. The substantial questions of law raised are no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Asstt. CIT(Exemption) [2017] 83 taxmann.com 78/396 ITR 323 (Gujarat). In view of the aforesaid, present Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” Therefore, if the intention of Hon’ble Supreme Court was the same as put forward by the Ld. CIT(DR), the case of Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority for AY 2015-16 should have been remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer to test whether Gandhinagar Urba…

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 273/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…137 taxmann.com 504 (Gujarat) had held as under: “4. The substantial questions of law raised are no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Asstt. CIT(Exemption) [2017] 83 taxmann.com 78/396 ITR 323 (Gujarat). In view of the aforesaid, present Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” Therefore, if the intention of Hon’ble Supreme Court was the same as put forward by the Ld. CIT(DR), the case of Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority for AY 2015-16 should have been remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer to test whether Gandhinagar Urba…

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 520/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…axmann.com 504 (Gujarat) had held as under:\n“4. The substantial questions of law raised are no longer res integra in view of the \ndecision of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. \nAsstt. CIT(Exemption) [2017] 83 taxmann.com 78/396 ITR 323 (Gujarat).\nIn view of the aforesaid, present Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.”\nTherefore, if the intention of Hon’ble Supreme Court was the same as put forward \nby the Ld. CIT(DR), the case of Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority for AY \n2015-16 should have been remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer to test \nwhether Gandhina…

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 518/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…xmann.com 504 (Gujarat) had held as under: \n“4. The substantial questions of law raised are no longer res integra in view of the \ndecision of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. \nAsstt. CIT(Exemption) [2017] 83 taxmann.com 78/396 ITR 323 (Gujarat). \nIn view of the aforesaid, present Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” \nTherefore, if the intention of Hon’ble Supreme Court was the same as put forward \nby the Ld. CIT(DR), the case of Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority for AY \n2015-16 should have been remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer to test \nwhether Gandhi…

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1353/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…ng for “Charitable Purpose” after introduction of the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act and such approach has been held to be incorrect by the various judicial forums in the following cases: (i) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) (2017) 396 ITR 323 (Guj.); . ITA No.1056, 1352 & 1353/Bang/2024 Page 10 of 21 (ii) Jaipur Development Authority Vs. CIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 25 (Jaipur – Trib.) (iii) Haridwar Development Authority Vs. CIT (2015) 57 taxmann.com 6 (Delhi – Trib.) (iv) CIT Vs. Lucknow Development Authority (2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (Allahabad) (v) CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Aut…

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY ,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD-3, , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1352/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…ng for "Charitable Purpose" after introduction of the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act and such approach has been held to be incorrect by the various judicial forums in the following cases: (i) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) (2017) 396 ITR 323 (Guj.); (ii) Jaipur Development Authority Vs. CIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 25 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) Haridwar Development Authority Vs. CIT (2015) 57 taxmann.com 6 (Delhi - Trib.) (iv) CIT Vs. Lucknow Development Authority (2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (Allahabad) (v) CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority (2017) 79 Taxmann 361 (Raj.). 6. The Tribunal a…

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMNAGAR

ITA 1056/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…ng for "Charitable Purpose" after introduction of the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act and such approach has been held to be incorrect by the various judicial forums in the following cases: (i) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) (2017) 396 ITR 323 (Guj.); (ii) Jaipur Development Authority Vs. CIT (2014) 52 taxmann.com 25 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) Haridwar Development Authority Vs. CIT (2015) 57 taxmann.com 6 (Delhi - Trib.) (iv) CIT Vs. Lucknow Development Authority (2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (Allahabad) (v) CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority (2017) 79 Taxmann 361 (Raj.). 6. The Tribunal al…

Showing 1–20 of 108 · Page 1 of 6

Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. ACIT (396 ITR 323) — Cited in 108 Judgments | BharatTax