CIT(A) v. Delhi State Industrial Development

295 ITR 419High Court2007#10475 most cited

What is CIT(A) v. Delhi State Industrial Development authority for?

Funds collected by an entity as agents of the government, to be used under the government's command and direction, are not taxable in the entity's hands.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Delhi State Industrial Development · 295 ITR 419 · agency · government funds · non-taxable · lease premium · agents of government · income tax

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(20A)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12ASection 12AA

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)section 10(20)advancement of general public utilitysection 58purposive interpretationsection 12aa(3)section 60section 13(8)corpus fundsection 13(3)proviso to section 2(15)section 13(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT(A) v. Delhi State Industrial Development

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…not belong to the assessee as it was to be used under the command and direction of the State Government, but he submitted that in rendering this judgment, the Hon’ble ITAT had relied upon the cases of Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation reported in 295 ITR 419 and the judgment of the ITAT Bangalore in Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation vs. ACIT (2006) 7 SOT 879, but in the subsequent decision passed in the case of Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, the same Member had amended his view by observing that Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority was not to be regarde…

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…not belong to the assessee as it was to be used under the command and direction of the State Government, but he submitted that in rendering this judgment, the Hon’ble ITAT had relied upon the cases of Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation reported in 295 ITR 419 and the judgment of the ITAT Bangalore in Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation vs. ACIT (2006) 7 SOT 879, but in the subsequent decision passed in the case of Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, the same Member had amended his view by observing that Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority was not to be regarde…

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…not belong to the assessee as it was to be used under the command and direction of the State Government, but he submitted that in rendering this judgment, the Hon’ble ITAT had relied upon the cases of Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation reported in 295 ITR 419 and the judgment of the ITAT Bangalore in Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation vs. ACIT (2006) 7 SOT 879, but in the subsequent decision passed in the case of Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, the same Member had amended his view by observing that Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority was not to be regarde…

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 2838/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarmaharashtra Industrial Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Development Corporation, (Exemptions), Mumbai Room No.601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- Hill Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, 400 093 Dr Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Pan : Aaacm3560C Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. SriramFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal (CIT DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(15)Section 263

…ssessee and were held to be non-taxable. This decision was consistent with rulings in analogous cases, such as Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation [(2006) 284 ITR 582 (Kar)] and CIT vs. Delhi State Industrial Development [(2007) 295 ITR 419 (Del)], where entities acting as agents of the government were not taxed on funds collected on the government’s behalf. Accordingly, the ITAT allowed the appeal, ruling that the amounts collected by the assessee as lease premiums and related charges were not taxable in its hands. Although the Revenue challenged the ITAT’s order before a higher ju…

M/S Infrastructure Development Fund, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, (Exemptions), C-2, Chandigarh

ITA 645/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 644 & 645/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2014-15 Infrastructure Development Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax बनाम Fund (Exemptions) Circle-2, Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 528 /Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Infrastructure Development Acit, बनाम Fund Circle-2 (Exemptions), Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri A. K. Jindal, Ca, Smt. Ratan Kaur & Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Chandrajeet Singh, Cit(Dr) Smt. C. Chandrakanta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Jindal, CA, Smt. Ratan KaurFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajeet Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, “A”, “च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 644 & 645/CHD/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2014-15 Infrastructure Development Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax बनाम Fund (Exemptions) Circle-2, SCO-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AAAL10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 528 /CHD/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:…

M/S Infrastructure Development Fund, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, (Exemptions), C-2, Chandigarh

ITA 644/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 644 & 645/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2014-15 Infrastructure Development Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax बनाम Fund (Exemptions) Circle-2, Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 528 /Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Infrastructure Development Acit, बनाम Fund Circle-2 (Exemptions), Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri A. K. Jindal, Ca, Smt. Ratan Kaur & Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Chandrajeet Singh, Cit(Dr) Smt. C. Chandrakanta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Jindal, CA, Smt. Ratan KaurFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajeet Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, “A”, “च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 644 & 645/CHD/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2014-15 Infrastructure Development Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax बनाम Fund (Exemptions) Circle-2, SCO-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AAAL10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 528 /CHD/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:…

M/S Infrastructure Development Fund, Chandigarh vs. ACIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh

ITA 528/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 644 & 645/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2014-15 Infrastructure Development Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax बनाम Fund (Exemptions) Circle-2, Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 528 /Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Infrastructure Development Acit, बनाम Fund Circle-2 (Exemptions), Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri A. K. Jindal, Ca, Smt. Ratan Kaur & Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Chandrajeet Singh, Cit(Dr) Smt. C. Chandrakanta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Jindal, CA, Smt. Ratan KaurFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajeet Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, “A”, “च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 644 & 645/CHD/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2014-15 Infrastructure Development Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax बनाम Fund (Exemptions) Circle-2, SCO-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AAAL10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 528 /CHD/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:…

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4474/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Maharashtra Industrial Deputy Commissioner Of Income Development Corporation Tax (Exemption)-2(1), बिधम/ Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacm3560C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 60Section 61Section 62

…judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (2006) 284 ITR 582 (Kar) and that of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Delhi State Industrial Development (2007) 295 ITR 419 (Del). It was further submitted P a g e | 16 ITA No. 4474/Mum/2017 A.Y 2011-12 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) -2(1) by the Ld. A.R that the assessee corporation had incurred certain specific costs on behalf of the users of the land developed by it, which were shown on the asset si…

A.C.I.T., Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad vs. M/S Firozabad Shikohabad Development Authority, Firozabad

ITA 270/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

…d order of ITAT Agra Bench Agra in the assessee’s case as he has not received any ITA 270 and 70 /Agra/2015 12 notice from the High Court in this reference till date. In support, he placed reliance on the cases of ‘CIT vs. Delhi State Industrial Development, 295 ITR 419 (Del) and ‘Saharanpur Development Authority vs. CIT, in ITA No. 132/Del/2009 where it is observed that interest earned by investing the surplus fund in banks belonging to state administration and not to the assessee and therefore, the interest could not be included in the income of the assessee. 9. We have heard the rival contentions, perused th…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Housing & Urban Devlopment Corporation

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 430 / 2010HC Delhi15 Apr 2010
For Appellant: Mr Sanjeev SabharwalFor Respondent: Mr Johnson Bara

…THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 15.04.2010 + ITA 430/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX … Appellant - versus – HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal For the Respondent : Mr Johnson Bara CORAM:- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whethe…

CIT(A) v. Delhi State Industrial Development (295 ITR 419) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax