Bangalore Development Authority v. ACIT

176 ITD 833Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2019#15112 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Judgments citing Bangalore Development Authority v. ACIT

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4395/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the trusts under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 because it wanted to carry on the business as colonizers or developers under the mask of the category "objects of general public utility". Further, the Tribunal in Bangalore Development Authority v. ACIT (176 ITD 833) at para 5.6.2 (Pg. 243 of LPB) has held as under - Para 5.6.2 (q) It is submitted that the amendment to Section 2(15) was carried out to tax entities wearing the mask of charity but in fact carrying on commercial activities. In the course of budget speech for 2009, Hon'ble Finance Minister observed "The memorandum explaining the provisions of Fi…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the trusts under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 because it wanted to carry on the business as colonizers or developers under the mask of the category "objects of general public utility". Further, the Tribunal in Bangalore Development Authority v. ACIT (176 ITD 833) at para 5.6.2 (Pg. 243 of LPB) has held as under - Para 5.6.2 (q) It is submitted that the amendment to Section 2(15) was carried out to tax entities wearing the mask of charity but in fact carrying on commercial activities. In the course of budget speech for 2009, Hon'ble Finance Minister observed "The memorandum explaining the provisions of Fi…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the trusts under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 because it wanted to carry on the business as colonizers or developers under the mask of the category "objects of general public utility". Further, the Tribunal in Bangalore Development Authority v. ACIT (176 ITD 833) at para 5.6.2 (Pg. 243 of LPB) has held as under - Para 5.6.2 (q) It is submitted that the amendment to Section 2(15) was carried out to tax entities wearing the mask of charity but in fact carrying on commercial activities. In the course of budget speech for 2009, Hon'ble Finance Minister observed "The memorandum explaining the provisions of Fi…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the trusts under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 because it wanted to carry on the business as colonizers or developers under the mask of the category "objects of general public utility". Further, the Tribunal in Bangalore Development Authority v. ACIT (176 ITD 833) at para 5.6.2 (Pg. 243 of LPB) has held as under - Para 5.6.2 (q) It is submitted that the amendment to Section 2(15) was carried out to tax entities wearing the mask of charity but in fact carrying on commercial activities. In the course of budget speech for 2009, Hon'ble Finance Minister observed "The memorandum explaining the provisions of Fi…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the trusts under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 because it wanted to carry on the business as colonizers or developers under the mask of the category "objects of general public utility". Further, the Tribunal in Bangalore Development Authority v. ACIT (176 ITD 833) at para 5.6.2 (Pg. 243 of LPB) has held as under - Para 5.6.2 (q) It is submitted that the amendment to Section 2(15) was carried out to tax entities wearing the mask of charity but in fact carrying on commercial activities. In the course of budget speech for 2009, Hon'ble Finance Minister observed "The memorandum explaining the provisions of Fi…

M/S Karnataka Udyog Mitra, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1504/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.N.Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.1504/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Karnataka Udyog Mitra The Dy.Commissioner of No.49, 3rd Floor, Khanija Bhavan Income-tax (Exemption) v. East Queen, Race Course Road Circle – 1, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AAATK8878L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.N.Suresh, CA Respondent by : Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR Date of Date of Hearing : 17.03.2021 Pronouncement : 18.03.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is di…

Bangalore Development Authority v. ACIT (176 ITD 833) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax