CIT(Exemption) v. 7. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

4 SCC 561Supreme Court of India2023#11653 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(46)Section 143(3)Section 10(23C)Section 11Section 2(15)Section 12Section 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 10(46)advancement of general public utilitysection 13(8)section 11(4a)proviso to section 2(15)section 10(23c)section 2(15)section 12aasection 12asection 10section 11previous year

Judgments citing CIT(Exemption) v. 7. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GREATER NOIDA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- APPEAL, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2489/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalyamuna Expressway Cit(Appeal), Industrial Development Ghaziabad. Authority, Greator Noida, Vs. First Floor, Commercial Complex, Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308. Pan-Aaalt0341D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(46)Section 12ASection 147(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 271BSection 3Section 44A

…to it as per the Uttar Pradesh Development Act, 1976 and, therefore, its receipts are exempt in terms of section 10(46) of the Act. It is further seen that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT(Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2023] 4 SCC 561 has held that the assessee is eligible for registration u/s 12A of the Act and further held that is the activities are not commercial in nature and are eligible for exemption u/s 10(46) of the Act. The assessee was also notified as eligible for exemption u/s 10(46) from AY 2014-15 to AY 2018-19 in terms of notification dt. 24.12.2020. 9. The Instit…

YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GREATER NOIDA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- APPEAL, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2488/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 12ASection 147(3)Section 148Section 2Section 22Section 271ASection 271BSection 3Section 44A

…to it as per the Uttar Pradesh Development Act, 1976 and, therefore, its receipts are exempted in terms of section 10(46) of the Act. It is further seen that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2023] 4 SCC 561 has held that assessee is eligible for registration u/s 12A of the Act and further held that its activities are not commercial in nature and are eligible for exemption u/s 10(46) of the Act. The relevant para No. 199 and 200 of the said order are as under: “199. The term "commercial" is closely similar to, if not identical, with the phrase "in the…

DCIT,(E) CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7073/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Delhi Development Authority, Vs Jcit(Exemption), Room No.205, B-Block, Vikas Range-1, New Delhi Sadan, Ina, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit(Exemption), Vs Delhi Development Authority, Central Cirlce-1(1), B-Block, Vikas Sadan, Ina New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Dcit(Exemption), Vs Delhi Development Authority, Circle-1(1), B-Block, Vikas Sadan, Ina New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anubhav Goel, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 Order

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

…so while granting the registration u/s 12A of the Act. However, the AO has not allowed such benefit and income of the assessee is taxed as business income. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(Exemption) vs 7. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2023) 4 SCC 561 (SC) considered the facts and made following observations in respect to the Statutory Corporation Authorities or bodies:- IV. Summation of conclusions 253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed ITA Nos.6894, 7072 & 7073/Del/2018 definition of “charitabl…

DCIT,(E) CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7072/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Delhi Development Authority, Vs Jcit(Exemption), Room No.205, B-Block, Vikas Range-1, New Delhi Sadan, Ina, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit(Exemption), Vs Delhi Development Authority, Central Cirlce-1(1), B-Block, Vikas Sadan, Ina New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Dcit(Exemption), Vs Delhi Development Authority, Circle-1(1), B-Block, Vikas Sadan, Ina New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anubhav Goel, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 Order

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

…so while granting the registration u/s 12A of the Act. However, the AO has not allowed such benefit and income of the assessee is taxed as business income. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(Exemption) vs 7. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2023) 4 SCC 561 (SC) considered the facts and made following observations in respect to the Statutory Corporation Authorities or bodies:- IV. Summation of conclusions 253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed ITA Nos.6894, 7072 & 7073/Del/2018 definition of “charitabl…

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT(E), RANGE- 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6894/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Delhi Development Authority, Vs Jcit(Exemption), Room No.205, B-Block, Vikas Range-1, New Delhi Sadan, Ina, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit(Exemption), Vs Delhi Development Authority, Central Cirlce-1(1), B-Block, Vikas Sadan, Ina New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Dcit(Exemption), Vs Delhi Development Authority, Circle-1(1), B-Block, Vikas Sadan, Ina New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anubhav Goel, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 Order

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

…so while granting the registration u/s 12A of the Act. However, the AO has not allowed such benefit and income of the assessee is taxed as business income. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(Exemption) vs 7. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2023) 4 SCC 561 (SC) considered the facts and made following observations in respect to the Statutory Corporation Authorities or bodies:- IV. Summation of conclusions 253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed ITA Nos.6894, 7072 & 7073/Del/2018 definition of “charitabl…

KERALA STATE EX SERVICEMEN DEVELOPMENT AND REHABILITATION CORPORATION,TRIVANDRUM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

ITA 420/COCH/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jun 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : Na

For Appellant: None
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 215Section 25

…he order of the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the application in terms of the proviso to Sec.215 is illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized. B. The impugned order is in conflict with the ratio of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2023) 4 SCC 561. It is submitted that the test laid down by the said Judgment stands satisfied in the case of the Appellant and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. C. The Adjudicating Authority went wrong in taking my opic view of the arguments and factual aspects canvassed before it. D. The Adjudicating Authority failed to take…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. OREGANISATION FOR THE RURAL WOMEN AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

Appeal is disposed of and

ITA/23/2019HC Orissa24 Nov 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

For Appellant: Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate
Section 5

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Tax Appeal No.23 of 2019 With I.A. No. 1466 of 2021 ----- The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Patna … … Appellant Versus M/s Jharkhand State Cricket Association … … Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate Mr. Anurag Vijay, Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate ------ Order No. 09/Dated 16th July,…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOYS LTD.

ITA/32/2018HC Orissa14 Jul 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

For Appellant: M/S.KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATIONFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
Section 2(15)

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1946 ITA NO. 182 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2018 IN ITA NO.428/COCH/2016 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH(ASST.YEAR 2012-13) APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (EXEMPTIONS) KOCHI BY ADVS. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)(R-348) RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/REVENUE: M/S.KERAL…

SHRI VIJAY MAKHIJA S/O SHRI GOVIND RAM MAKHIJA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF TAX-I

ITA/81/2019HC Rajasthan29 Jul 2020

Bench: SABINA,PRAKASH GUPTA

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Chaudhary and Mr. Vijay ChawlaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr
Section 2(15)Section 260ASection 3Section 38Section 38(1)Section 72

…that the assessee Authority is involved in the commercial activity with a motive to earn profit. He would further submit that it is a case where without there being any basis, the Assessing Officer by suggesting amendment in Sections 1 (2023) 4 SCC 561 Page 9 of 20 (Tax Case No.81/2019) 10(23C), 13 and 143 of the IT Act, directed addition of ₹ 21,62,94,042/- which has rightly been set-aside by the appellate authority – CIT (Appeals) and further rightly been affirmed by the ITAT and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed by answering the substantial questions of law in favour of th…

CIT(Exemption) v. 7. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (4 SCC 561) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax