Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. CIT 1996 (

230 ITR 945Supreme Court of India1998#3843 most cited

What is Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. CIT 1996 ( authority for?

An assessee can claim the benefit of Section 11 exemption only if registered under Section 12A or 12AA. Voluntary contributions received before registration do not qualify for exemption under Section 11(1)(d).

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. CIT · 1996 · Section 11 · Section 12A · Section 12AA · exemption · voluntary contributions · registration

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12AASection 10(20)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 12Section 145

Issues it is cited on

section 11 exemptionrecognised provident fundapproved superannuation fundsection 80j(6a)section 12a(b)section 10(22)section 10(20)section 40(1)section 24aapproved gratuity fundsection 36(1)(v)section 40(3)

Judgments citing Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. CIT 1996 (

SHREE JAGAT GURU BRAHMANAND GAUSHALA SAMITI,PANIPAT vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

ITA 297/DEL/2022[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

…Section 11(1)(d) and an assessee can claim benefit u/s 11 only when such assessee is registered u/s 12A or 12AA. This assertion is not only backed by the statute but also by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. U P Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) [1998] and decisions of various other Hon'ble High Courts like: (A) New Life in Christ Evangelsit Association vs. CIT reported in 246 ITR 532 (Madras) [2001]: (B) CIT vs. Red Rose School reported in 212 CTR (All) 394; (C) M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre vs. ITAT reported in 251 ITR 852 (Mumbai) [2001]: (D) CIT vs. Ot…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ts necessary to avail benefit of tax exemption under section 11 by the virtue of registration under section 12AA. As to what should be done in such situations, we find guidance from Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs UP Forest Corporation (230 ITR 945). On materially similar set of facts, Their Lordships, inter alia, observed that “Inasmuch as the respondent cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as a local authority, interest of justice would demand that the question as to whether its income is liable to be exempted under section 11(1) of the Act should be investigated and examined by a proper f…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ts necessary to avail benefit of tax exemption under section 11 by the virtue of registration under section 12AA. As to what should be done in such situations, we find guidance from Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs UP Forest Corporation (230 ITR 945). On materially similar set of facts, Their Lordships, inter alia, observed that “Inasmuch as the respondent cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as a local authority, interest of justice would demand that the question as to whether its income is liable to be exempted under section 11(1) of the Act should be investigated and examined by a proper f…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ts necessary to avail benefit of tax exemption under section 11 by the virtue of registration under section 12AA. As to what should be done in such situations, we find guidance from Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs UP Forest Corporation (230 ITR 945). On materially similar set of facts, Their Lordships, inter alia, observed that “Inasmuch as the respondent cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as a local authority, interest of justice would demand that the question as to whether its income is liable to be exempted under section 11(1) of the Act should be investigated and examined by a proper f…

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ts necessary to avail benefit of tax exemption under section 11 by the virtue of registration under section 12AA. As to what should be done in such situations, we find guidance from Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs UP Forest Corporation (230 ITR 945). On materially similar set of facts, Their Lordships, inter alia, observed that “Inasmuch as the respondent cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as a local authority, interest of justice would demand that the question as to whether its income is liable to be exempted under section 11(1) of the Act should be investigated and examined by a proper f…

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ts necessary to avail benefit of tax exemption under section 11 by the virtue of registration under section 12AA. As to what should be done in such situations, we find guidance from Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs UP Forest Corporation (230 ITR 945). On materially similar set of facts, Their Lordships, inter alia, observed that “Inasmuch as the respondent cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as a local authority, interest of justice would demand that the question as to whether its income is liable to be exempted under section 11(1) of the Act should be investigated and examined by a proper f…

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ts necessary to avail benefit of tax exemption under section 11 by the virtue of registration under section 12AA. As to what should be done in such situations, we find guidance from Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs UP Forest Corporation (230 ITR 945). On materially similar set of facts, Their Lordships, inter alia, observed that “Inasmuch as the respondent cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as a local authority, interest of justice would demand that the question as to whether its income is liable to be exempted under section 11(1) of the Act should be investigated and examined by a proper f…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, 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)

…on'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 left open for adjudication at the relevant point of ti…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, 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)

…on'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 left open for adjudication at the relevant point of ti…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, 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

…on'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 left open for adjudication at the relevant point of t…

YADAV KALYAN SAMITI ,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXMPTIONS CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2052/DEL/2021[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…Section 11(1 )(d) and an assessee can claim benefit u/s 11 only when such assessee is registered u/s 12A or 12AA. This assertion is not only backed by the statute but also by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. U P Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) [1998] and decisions of various other Hon’ble High Courts like: (A) New Life in Christ Evangelsit Association vs. CIT reported in 246 ITR 532 (Madras) [2001]; (B) CIT vs. Red Rose School reported in 212 CTR (All) 394; (C) M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre vs. ITAT reported in 251 ITR 852 (Mumbai) [ 2001]; (D) CIT vs. O…

ASSOCIATION OF ORAL MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS OF INDIA,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 279/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Pune25 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 147

…CIT(A) have treated the assessee as an AOP only for want of registration u/sec.12AA of the Act. There would be hardly any issue between the parties in the light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in U.P. Forest Corporation and Another vs., DCIT [1998] 230 ITR 945 (SC) that such a registration forms condition precedent for the purpose of claiming sec.11 exemption. 3. Now comes the most clinching development which has taken place after the institution of all these cases on 13.03.2023. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned CIT(E) has passed his order granting sec.12AA registration on 18.05.2023…

ASSOCIATION OF ORAL MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS OF INDIA,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 278/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Pune25 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 147

…CIT(A) have treated the assessee as an AOP only for want of registration u/sec.12AA of the Act. There would be hardly any issue between the parties in the light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in U.P. Forest Corporation and Another vs., DCIT [1998] 230 ITR 945 (SC) that such a registration forms condition precedent for the purpose of claiming sec.11 exemption. 3. Now comes the most clinching development which has taken place after the institution of all these cases on 13.03.2023. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned CIT(E) has passed his order granting sec.12AA registration on 18.05.2023…

ASSOCIATION OF ORAL MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS OF INDIA,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 277/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune25 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 147

…CIT(A) have treated the assessee as an AOP only for want of registration u/sec.12AA of the Act. There would be hardly any issue between the parties in the light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in U.P. Forest Corporation and Another vs., DCIT [1998] 230 ITR 945 (SC) that such a registration forms condition precedent for the purpose of claiming sec.11 exemption. 3. Now comes the most clinching development which has taken place after the institution of all these cases on 13.03.2023. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned CIT(E) has passed his order granting sec.12AA registration on 18.05.2023…

ASSOCIATION OF ORAL MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS OF INDIA,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 276/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Pune25 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 147

…CIT(A) have treated the assessee as an AOP only for want of registration u/sec.12AA of the Act. There would be hardly any issue between the parties in the light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in U.P. Forest Corporation and Another vs., DCIT [1998] 230 ITR 945 (SC) that such a registration forms condition precedent for the purpose of claiming sec.11 exemption. 3. Now comes the most clinching development which has taken place after the institution of all these cases on 13.03.2023. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned CIT(E) has passed his order granting sec.12AA registration on 18.05.2023…

ASSOCIATION OF ORAL MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS OF INDIA,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 275/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Pune25 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 147

…CIT(A) have treated the assessee as an AOP only for want of registration u/sec.12AA of the Act. There would be hardly any issue between the parties in the light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in U.P. Forest Corporation and Another vs., DCIT [1998] 230 ITR 945 (SC) that such a registration forms condition precedent for the purpose of claiming sec.11 exemption. 3. Now comes the most clinching development which has taken place after the institution of all these cases on 13.03.2023. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned CIT(E) has passed his order granting sec.12AA registration on 18.05.2023…

BHAG KAUR AND HARNAM SINGH ZORIA,DASUYA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 16/ASR/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

…u/s 11 only when such assessee is I.T.A. No.16/Asr/2021 4 Assessment Year: 2020-21 registered u/s 12A or 12AA. This assertion is not only backed by the statute but also by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. U P Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) [1998] and decisions of various other Hon’ble High Courts like: (A) New Life in Christ Evangelsit Association vs. CIT reported in 246 ITR 532 (Madras) [2001 ];(B) CIT vs. Red Rose School reported in 212 Cl'R (All) 394;(C) M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre vs. ITAT reported in 251 ITR 852 (Mumbai) [ 2001];(D) CIT vs. Ot…

GRUHINI SAMAJ,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 35/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.35/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gruhini Samaj, Dcit, Plot No.252, Gruhini Samaj, Vs. Cpc, Bangalore Old Ramdaspeth, Nagpur – 440010 Maharashtra Pan : Aabtg8156G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Anshu R. Deshpande Respondent By Shri G.J. Ninawe Date Of Hearing 03-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21-11-2022

Section 11Section 12ASection 164Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH “SMC”, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.35/NAG/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gruhini Samaj, DCIT, Plot No.252, Gruhini Samaj, Vs. CPC, Bangalore Old Ramdaspeth, Nagpur – 440010 Maharashtra PAN : AABTG8156G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Anshu R. Deshpande Respondent by Shri G.J. Ninawe Date of hearing 03-11-2022 Date of pronouncement 21-11-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This assessee’s appeal for AY 2014-15 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi NFAC’s order dated 07-01-…

LIONS CLUB SONIPAT CHARITABLE TRUST,SONIPAT vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 511/DEL/2021[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmalions Club Sonipat Charitable Commissioner Of Income Tax Trust, (Exemption), 5Th Floor, C.R. Building, Himalaya 231 Model Town, Vs Sonipat, Marg, Sector-17-E, Haryana-1310001 Chandigarh-160017 Pan-Aabtl8304M Assessee Revenue

Section 11Section 12A

…Section 11(1 )(d) and an assessee can claim benefit u/s 11 only when such assessee is registered u/s 12A or 12AA. This assertion is not only backed by the statute but also by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. U P Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) [1998] and decisions of various other Hon'ble High Courts like: (A) .New Life in Christ Evangelsit Association vs. CIT reported in 246 ITR'532- (Madras) [2001]; (B) CIT vs. Red Rose School reported in 212 CTR (All) 394; (C) M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre vs. ITAT reported in 251 ITR 852 (Mumbai) [ 2001]; (D) CIT vs.…

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)

…nd 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. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the apex court in the…

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2