Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. CIT

219 ITR 515Supreme Court of India1996#9535 most cited

What is Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. CIT authority for?

Institutions set up for specific purposes do not qualify as 'local authorities' for the purpose of section 10(20) of the Income-tax Act. This applies even if the institution's activities are considered for the advancement of general public utility.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Calcutta State Transport Corporation v CIT · section 10(20) · local authority · general public utility · section 11 · advancement of general public utility · not for profit · CIT v U.P. Forest Corporation · Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority

Sections most often in play

Section 10(20)Section 10(20A)Section 11Section 113Section 114Section 118Section 12Section 12A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 40(1)section 24asection 40(3)section 10(20a)section 160section 10(20)advancement of general public utilitysection 46asection 113section 114section 13(3)cancellation of registration

Judgments citing Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3795/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

…10(20). In doing so he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, 283 ITR 97 (SC), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT, 286 ITR 350, CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS CIT 219 ITR 515 (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) wherein it has been held that institutions set up for the specific purposes, does not amount to 'local authority' for the purpose of section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. 17. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel squarely admitted that these issues became academic in nature and can be…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3794/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

…10(20). In doing so he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, 283 ITR 97 (SC), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT, 286 ITR 350, CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS CIT 219 ITR 515 (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) wherein it has been held that institutions set up for the specific purposes, does not amount to 'local authority' for the purpose of section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. 17. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel squarely admitted that these issues became academic in nature and can be…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai

ITA 3791/MUM/2023[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 11Section 126Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 3

…10(20). In doing so he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, 283 ITR 97 (SC), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT, 286 ITR 350, CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS CIT 219 ITR 515 (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) wherein it has been held that institutions set up for the specific purposes, does not amount to 'local authority' for the purpose of section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. 17. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel squarely admitted that these issues became academic in nature and can be…

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)

…use property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (1998) 230 ITR 945 (SC) were followed. In the said case the assessee for the A. Y. 1977-78 had claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the I. T. Act on the basis that the Corporation had been formed for the advancement of an object of general public utility not involving the carrying on any activity for profit. Reli…

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)

…use property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (1998) 230 ITR 945 (SC) were followed. In the said case the assessee for the A. Y. 1977-78 had claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the I. T. Act on the basis that the Corporation had been formed for the advancement of an object of general public utility not involving the carrying on any activity for profit. Reli…

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)

…use property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (1998) 230 ITR 945 (SC) were followed. In the said case the assessee for the A. Y. 1977-78 had claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the I. T. Act on the basis that the Corporation had been formed for the advancement of an object of general public utility not involving the carrying on any activity for profit. Reli…

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)

…use property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (1998) 230 ITR 945 (SC) were followed. In the said case the assessee for the A. Y. 1977-78 had claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the I. T. Act on the basis that the Corporation had been formed for the advancement of an object of general public utility not involving the carrying on any activity for profit. Reli…

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)

…use property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (1998) 230 ITR 945 (SC) were followed. In the said case the assessee for the A. Y. 1977-78 had claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the I. T. Act on the basis that the Corporation had been formed for the advancement of an object of general public utility not involving the carrying on any activity for profit. Reli…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3690/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Mumbai Metropolitan Vs. Director Of Income Tax Region Development (Exemptions), Mumbai Authority, Plot No. C-14 & 15, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaatm7106R Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 263

…of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. While 7 Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority deciding the issue the decision in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest corporation (1998)230 ITR 945 (SC) were followed. In the said case the assessee for the A.Y. 1977-78 had claimed exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act on the basis that the corporation had been formed for the advancement of an object of general public utility not involving the carrying on any activity for profit. 8. Afte…

Dy D.I.T. (E)-I(1), Mumbai vs. The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda), Mumbai

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

ITA 4177/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13

…0). In doing so he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, 283 ITR 97 (SC), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT, 286 ITR 350, CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION - VS - CIT 219 ITR 515 (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) wherein it has been held that institutions set up for the specific purposes, does not amount to 'local authority' for the purpose of section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. 17. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel squarely admitted that these issues became academic in nature and can be…

M/S. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. The ADIT(E) RG- 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 3841/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13

…0). In doing so he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, 283 ITR 97 (SC), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT, 286 ITR 350, CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION - VS - CIT 219 ITR 515 (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) wherein it has been held that institutions set up for the specific purposes, does not amount to 'local authority' for the purpose of section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. 17. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel squarely admitted that these issues became academic in nature and can be…

Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. CIT (219 ITR 515) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax