CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board

295 ITR 561Supreme Court of India2007#1180 most cited

What is CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board authority for?

A statutory corporation undertaking activities that generate income qualifies as a charitable entity under Section 2(15) if its dominant object is general public utility and it is legally obligated to apply its income solely for that purpose, even if the activities appear to be in the nature of trade or business. Such an entity is entitled to registration under Section 12A and exemptions under Section 11.

96

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Gujarat Maritime Board · 295 ITR 561 · Section 2(15) · Section 11 · Section 12A · Section 10(46) · charitable purpose · general public utility · statutory corporation · profit motive · application of income

Also reported as

166 Taxmann 58214 CTR 81

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 10(46)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205advancement of general public utilitysection 10(23c)(iv)section 10(20a)section 36(1)(v)section 10(46)section 73proviso to section 2(15)section 11(4a)section 52section 2(15)

Judgments citing CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board

PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEV. AUTHORITY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

ITA/599/2006HC Punjab & Haryana14 Jan 2026

Bench: Commissioner (Exemption) On 28.01.2026 At 11:00Am Along With Requisite Documents & Thereafter As Directed By Said Authority. 4.

…JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ACIT(E) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority”, (2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC) and “CIT Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board”, (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC), the impugned orders may be set aside and matter be remanded to Commissioner (Exemption) to pass fresh order. 2. In the wake of statement of both sides, the petitions stand disposed of with a direction to Commissioner (Exemption) to pass fresh order in the light of afore-cited judgments. 3. The assessee at the first instance w…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CGO COMPLEX, HAPUR CHUNGI vs. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOTIJHEEL, KANPUR

ITA 4580/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ion of commercial complex by charitable trust eligible. 20. If the objects of the "Authority" is charitable as public utility then the benefit being a charitable trust is eligible as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 / [2008] 166 Taxman 58 (SC), where it was observed that:-..........in Section 2(15), namely, "any other object of general public utility". From the said decisions it emerges that the said expression is of the widest connotation. The word "general" in the said expression means pertaining to a whole class. Therefore, advancement of any object of be…

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

ITA 936/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)

…dies that are notified under section 10(46). B.4 For the period 1-4-2003 to 1-4-2011, a statutory corporation could claim the benefit of section 2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2008] 166 Taxman 58/[2007] 295 ITR 561/214 CTR 81 (SC)/[2007] 12 SCR 962/[2007] 14 SCC 704. Likewise, the denial of benefit under section 10(46) after 1-4-2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that it is set-up for a charitable purpose and seeking exemption under section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act. H. Appl…

FEDERATION OF EUROPEAN BUSINESS IN INDIA,DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 2446/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrafederation Of European Commissioner Of Income Business In India, Tax (Exemption), Aiwan-E-Ghalib Complex, Vs. E-2, Civic Centre, Mata Sundari Lane, Minto Road, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 Pan: Aafcf5934N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amol Sinha, Advocate Sh. Ankit Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 15/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/12/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi [‘Cit(E)’].

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 8

…cement of any other object of general public utility. In following judicial pronouncements, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts have done interpretation of words “any other object of general public utility”; Gujarat Maritime Board [2003] 295 ITR 561 (SC), Bharat Diamond Bourse [2003] 259 ITR 280 (SC), Agricultural Produce and Market Committee [2007] 291 ITR 419 (Bom.), Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry [1981] 130 ITR 186 (SC). So long as the dominant object is of general public utility and there is no profit motive, it cannot be said that the trust/institution is not estab…

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri A.P. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 2(15)Section 3

…in the nature of trade, commerce or business. Unless the activity undertaken by the assessee comes within the ambit of trade, commerce or business, the proviso would not get attract. 3.(10). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board 295 ITR 561 has held that where the assessee was under a legal obligation to apply its income which was directly and substantially from ITA. Nos.232 to 235/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 22 the business held under trust for the development of minor ports in the State of Gujarat, then it does not involve any profit motive and assessee was entitled for registration u/s…

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 234/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri A.P. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 2(15)Section 3

…in the nature of trade, commerce or business. Unless the activity undertaken by the assessee comes within the ambit of trade, commerce or business, the proviso would not get attract. 3.(10). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board 295 ITR 561 has held that where the assessee was under a legal obligation to apply its income which was directly and substantially from ITA. Nos.232 to 235/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 22 the business held under trust for the development of minor ports in the State of Gujarat, then it does not involve any profit motive and assessee was entitled for registration u/s…

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 233/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri A.P. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 2(15)Section 3

…in the nature of trade, commerce or business. Unless the activity undertaken by the assessee comes within the ambit of trade, commerce or business, the proviso would not get attract. 3.(10). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board 295 ITR 561 has held that where the assessee was under a legal obligation to apply its income which was directly and substantially from ITA. Nos.232 to 235/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 22 the business held under trust for the development of minor ports in the State of Gujarat, then it does not involve any profit motive and assessee was entitled for registration u/s…

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-APPEAL, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 232/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri A.P. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 2(15)Section 3

…in the nature of trade, commerce or business. Unless the activity undertaken by the assessee comes within the ambit of trade, commerce or business, the proviso would not get attract. 3.(10). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board 295 ITR 561 has held that where the assessee was under a legal obligation to apply its income which was directly and substantially from ITA. Nos.232 to 235/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 22 the business held under trust for the development of minor ports in the State of Gujarat, then it does not involve any profit motive and assessee was entitled for registration u/s…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT. PALLAVI MISHRA,

ITA/10/2022HC Rajasthan14 Nov 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,UMA SHANKER VYAS

Section 12Section 12ASection 260A

…see trust meant for benefit of pharma dealers would undoubtedly fall within the fourth limb of Section 2 (15) of the Act. Some of the observations are quoted below - 8.7 We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board (2007) 295 ITR 561 has held that “when an object is to promote or protect the interest of a particular trade or industry that object becomes an object of public utility. Similar view expressed in CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC). 8.8 In the light of ratio of various decisions, some of which have been quoted above, it is evident that th…

KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUTURE DEV CORPORATION(KINFRA),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

ITA 452/COCH/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260ASection 263

…er section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act.” 5. The assessee’s counsel reiterates that the assessment years before us are 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 i.e. between the time period from 01.04.2003 to 01.04.2011 and as per CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC), it is entitled for the impugned relief as follows:- “12. One of the objections raised on behalf of the Department was that Gujarat Maritime Board is not entitled to the benefit of section 11 of the 1961 Act as the said Board was not a trust under Public Trust Act and, therefore, it was not entitled to claim registration under section 12A of…

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 287/COCH/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260ASection 263

…er section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act.” 5. The assessee’s counsel reiterates that the assessment years before us are 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 i.e. between the time period from 01.04.2003 to 01.04.2011 and as per CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC), it is entitled for the impugned relief as follows:- “12. One of the objections raised on behalf of the Department was that Gujarat Maritime Board is not entitled to the benefit of section 11 of the 1961 Act as the said Board was not a trust under Public Trust Act and, therefore, it was not entitled to claim registration under section 12A of…

THE DELHI BUILDING & OTHERS CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2916/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrathe Delhi Building & Vs. Acit(E), Circle- 2(1) Others Construction Civic Centre, Workers Welfare Board New Delhi – 110002 5, Sham Nath Marg, O/O Labour Commissioner, Govt. Of Nct, Delhi – 110054 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajt1846R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 4Section 60

…ers employed in construction activity which is an "object of general public utility under sec. 2(15) of the Act The Hon'ble High Court thereafter following the ratio land down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT is Gujarat Mary Times Board (2007)- 295 ITR 561 (5C) has been pleased to hold the direction of the ITAT for grant of registration as fully justified with this finding that the assessee was a genuine charitable institution In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court in para No 2 of the decision has also reproduced finding recorded by the ITAT regarding duties and objects as well as purposes fo…

MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELPOMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM ITA No. 39 & 457/Mum/2024 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2017-18) Asst. Commissioner of Maharashtra Housing & Area Income Tax (Exemption), Development Authority Circle 2, R. No. 608, Finance Controller, MHADA, 6th floor, Cumballa Hill Griha Nirman Bhavan, Vs. 4th Floor, Kala Nagar, Telephone Exchange Bandra (East) Building, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 026 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAAJM0344H Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar, AR Revenue by : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR Date of hearing:…

DCIT CIRCLE -1 (EXEMPTION) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NARODA ENVIRO PROJCT LIMITED , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 360/AHD/2024[2016 17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 2(15)Section 25

…includes all objects to promote the welfare of the public, and when an object is to promote or protect the interest of particular trade or industry that object becomes an object of public utility and would be charitable purpose (Gujarat Maritime Board (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC) [see Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee, (2011) 336 ITR 641 (AP)] DCIT Vs Naroda Enviro Project Limited Asst.Year 2016-2017 8 89. In our opinion, this could be termed as a charitable purpose which has as its motive advancement of an object of general public utility to which the exception carved out in the first pro…

ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUNGNALAYA & RESEARCH CENTER,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE

ITA 714/PUN/2018[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Keyur Patel [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 22Section 253(1)(c)

…place that, BPT/MPT also recognises society as public trust, then averred that no separate registration thereunder is pre-requisite for seeking registration under the Act in the light of decision rendered in ‘CIT Vs Gujarat Maritime Board’ reported in [2007] 295 ITR 561(SC). 13.1.3 To answer conclusively, firstly let us look into definition of public trust as defined by section 2(13) of BPT/MPT Act, wherein the ‘Public Trust, means an express or constructive trust for either a public, religious or charitable purpose or both and includes a temple, a math, a wakf, church, synagogue, agiary or other place of publi…

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Shri Aby T. Varkey, JM ITA No.75/Coch/2015: Asst.Year:2009-2010 ITA No.76/Coch/2015: Asst.Year:2010-2011 ITA No.77/Coch/2015: Asst.Year:2011-2012 Infoparks Kerala The Joint Director of Athulya, Kusumagiri PO Income-tax (OSD) vs. Kakkanad PO (Exemptions) Range-4 Kochi – 682030 Kochi. [PAN:AAAAI1094D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing: 15.5.2023 Pronouncement: 11.8.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is a set of three Appe…

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Shri Aby T. Varkey, JM ITA No.75/Coch/2015: Asst.Year:2009-2010 ITA No.76/Coch/2015: Asst.Year:2010-2011 ITA No.77/Coch/2015: Asst.Year:2011-2012 Infoparks Kerala The Joint Director of Athulya, Kusumagiri PO Income-tax (OSD) vs. Kakkanad PO (Exemptions) Range-4 Kochi – 682030 Kochi. [PAN:AAAAI1094D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing: 15.5.2023 Pronouncement: 11.8.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is a set of three Appe…

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Shri Aby T. Varkey, JM ITA No.75/Coch/2015: Asst.Year:2009-2010 ITA No.76/Coch/2015: Asst.Year:2010-2011 ITA No.77/Coch/2015: Asst.Year:2011-2012 Infoparks Kerala The Joint Director of Athulya, Kusumagiri PO Income-tax (OSD) vs. Kakkanad PO (Exemptions) Range-4 Kochi – 682030 Kochi. [PAN:AAAAI1094D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing: 15.5.2023 Pronouncement: 11.8.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is a set of three Appe…

CONFRERE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4464/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 12ASection 250Section 251Section 56

…cannot be disallowed if the source of income held under the trust is under legal obligation and here the assessee was under obligation to apply the income for charitable purposes. The judgment relied upon by him are as under:- i. CIT-v- Gujarat Maritime Board 295 ITR 561 SC All India Spinners Association-v-CIT 12 ITR 482 PC ii. iii. CIT-v-Andhra Chamber of Commerce 55 ITR 722 SC Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd-v-CIT 225 ITR 235 iv. SC ITA Nos.4464 & 4463/Del/2017 Confrere Educational Society vs. ITO(E) 9 Institute of Chartered Accountants of India-v-DGIT 358 v. ITR 91 (Del) 8. Mr. Singhal submitted that…

NAYA RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), RAIPUR

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

ITA 63/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 174 & 63/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Naya Raipur Development Authority Prayavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur Marg, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar(C.G.) Pin-492 002. Pan : Aaalc0225H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri S.R Rao & Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ar’S. Revenue By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09.06.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022

For Appellant: S/shri S.R Rao & Rajesh KumarFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 64Section 65Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 174 & 63/RPR/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(s) : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Naya Raipur Development Authority Prayavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur Marg, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar(C.G.) Pin-492 002. PAN : AAALC0225H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : S/shri S.R Rao & Rajesh Kumar Chawda, A…

Showing 1–20 of 96 · Page 1 of 5

CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561) — Cited in 96 Judgments | BharatTax