CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation

284 ITR 582High Court2006#1570 most cited

What is CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation authority for?

Funds received by an entity acting as a nodal agency or agent of the government for implementing specific government schemes, or income generated from such funds (like lease premiums or interest), are not taxable in the hands of the agency if held on behalf of or remitted to the government.

73

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v KUIDFC · Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation · 284 ITR 582 · 155 Taxmann.com 228 · nodal agency income tax · government agent funds taxability · representative assessee Section 160 · funds collected on government's behalf · non-taxable income government schemes · interest income nodal agency

Also reported as

155 Taxmann.com 228

Sections most often in play

Section 113Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 160Section 10(26B)Section 114

Issues it is cited on

section 3asection 160section 113section 114section 155section 16section 57section 22section 56liable to taxincome from other sourcessection 194

Judgments citing CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1366/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmaharashtra Airport Development Company World Trade Centre, Tower-1, 8Th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 ............... Appellant Pan: Aadcm9623M

For Appellant: Shri Rushab MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Maharashtra Airport Development Company World Trade Centre, Tower-1, 8th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 ............... Appellant PAN: AADCM9623M v/s National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi ……………… Respondent 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi. Assessee by : Shri Rushab Mehta Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR Date of Hearing – 24/12/2025 Date of Order - 31/12/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL,…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

ITA 617/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

…same would not be charged to tax in the hands of the assessee. Copy of judgment of ITAT Lucknow is attached as Annexure J. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. vs Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation on 21 February, 2006 (ITA No. 284 ITR 582 (Kar)- High Court of Karnataka) Few facts leading to this appeal are as under: The respondent M/s Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Financial Corporation (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a fully Karnataka State Government owned company. The assessee was appointed as a nodal agency for the implementation of th…

DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 87/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarmaharashtra Airport V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Development Company बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), Limited Room No. 608, Aayakar 8, World Trade Centre, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Tower 1, 8Th Floor, Cuffe Road, Mumbai – 400020, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm9623M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), बनाम Development Company Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Limited, 8, World Trade Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Centre, Tower 1, 8Th Floor, Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 Cuffe Parade, Colaba S.O. 020, Maharashtra Mumbai–400005, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm9623M Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Maharashtra Airport v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Development Company बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), Limited Room No. 608, Aayakar 8, World Trade Centre, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Tower 1, 8th Floor, Cuffe Road, Mumbai – 400020, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADCM9623M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Deputy Commissioner of v/s. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), बनाम Development Company Roo…

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 37/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nShri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 57

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT\n&\nSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No. 37/MUM/2024\n(A.Y. 2016-17)\n\nMaharashtra\nDevelopment\nLimited\nAirport\nCompany\nAppellan t/अपीलार्थी\n\nv/s.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADCM9623M\n..\nAssistant Commissioner of\nIncome Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1),\nRoom No. 608, Aayakar\nBhavan, Maharishi Karve\nRoad, Mumbai – 400020,\nMaharashtra\nRespondent/प्रतिवादी\n\nITA No. 87/MUM/2024\n(A.Y. 2016-17)\n\nDeputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1),\nRoom No. 608, 6th Fl…

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

…lease premiums and related charges were not treated as the income of the assessee 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…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANGERE, DAVANGERE vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR DAVANGERE SMART CITY LIMITED, DAVANGERE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 858/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 56

…exempt. The assessee submitted that interest income is out of money given by the Govt. of India for the purpose of implementation of Smart City scheme and relied on the judgment in the case of Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corpn. (2006) 284 ITR 582 (Karn) and (2009) 15 ITR 301 (Karn). The AO also relied on the ITA Nos. 857 & 858/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 14 judgment of CIT v. Shaw Wallace & Co. [1932] 59 LA. 206 and Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All.). Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the AO held that interest income of Rs.13,90,47,536 as income u/s. 56 of the A…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, DAVANGERE, DAVANGERE vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR DAVANAGERE SMART CITY LIMITED , DAVANGERE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 857/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 56

…exempt. The assessee submitted that interest income is out of money given by the Govt. of India for the purpose of implementation of Smart City scheme and relied on the judgment in the case of Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corpn. (2006) 284 ITR 582 (Karn) and (2009) 15 ITR 301 (Karn). The AO also relied on the ITA Nos. 857 & 858/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 14 judgment of CIT v. Shaw Wallace & Co. [1932] 59 LA. 206 and Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All.). Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the AO held that interest income of Rs.13,90,47,536 as income u/s. 56 of the A…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…has held thus:- Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore Page 11 of 17 "An identical question had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in (CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation 12006] 284 ITR 582), I.T.A. No. 2418 of 2005 between the same parties, decided on February 21. 2006. The said judgment has been placed for consideration before us and we have gone through it. Essentially, the Tribunal has also placed reliance on the said judgment and accordingly held in favour of the assessee. We have no doubt in our mind that the said judgment s…

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 520/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra Airport Tax- 3(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Mumbai 12Th Floor,World Trade Centre, Vs. Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234BSection 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner of Income Maharashtra Airport Tax- 3(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Mumbai 12th Floor,World Trade Centre, Vs. Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005 (PAN : AADCM9623M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maharashtra Airport Development Assistant Commissioner of Co. Ltd., Income Tax- 3(2)(1), 8th Floor, World Trade Centre, Mumbai Vs. Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005 (PAN : AADCM9623M) (Appell…

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7497/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra Airport Tax- 3(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Mumbai 12Th Floor,World Trade Centre, Vs. Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234BSection 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner of Income Maharashtra Airport Tax- 3(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Mumbai 12th Floor,World Trade Centre, Vs. Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005 (PAN : AADCM9623M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maharashtra Airport Development Assistant Commissioner of Co. Ltd., Income Tax- 3(2)(1), 8th Floor, World Trade Centre, Mumbai Vs. Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005 (PAN : AADCM9623M) (Appell…

ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 50/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case
Section 194ASection 56

…judicial pronouncements which are as under:- (1) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Delhi State Industrial Development [2007] 162 Taxman 275 (Delhi//2007| 295 |TR 419 (Delhi) (2) CIT v/s Anr. V. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Limited (2006) [284 ITR 582](Karnataka High Court) (3) M/S Rajasthan Urban Drinking ... vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [ITAT Jaipur ITA No. 713 & 714/JP/2018] (Feb-2019)] (4) Deputy Commissioner of Income ... vs Rajasthan Avas Vikas & Infrastructure Ltd (ITAT Jaipur ITA No. 486/JP/2018] (May 2018) (5) Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corpn. V.…

ACIT CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 49/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case
Section 194ASection 56

…judicial pronouncements which are as under:- (1) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Delhi State Industrial Development [2007] 162 Taxman 275 (Delhi//2007| 295 |TR 419 (Delhi) (2) CIT v/s Anr. V. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Limited (2006) [284 ITR 582](Karnataka High Court) (3) M/S Rajasthan Urban Drinking ... vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [ITAT Jaipur ITA No. 713 & 714/JP/2018] (Feb-2019)] (4) Deputy Commissioner of Income ... vs Rajasthan Avas Vikas & Infrastructure Ltd (ITAT Jaipur ITA No. 486/JP/2018] (May 2018) (5) Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corpn. V.…

DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS &INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 132/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case
Section 194ASection 56

…judicial pronouncements which are as under:- (1) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Delhi State Industrial Development [2007] 162 Taxman 275 (Delhi//2007| 295 |TR 419 (Delhi) (2) CIT v/s Anr. V. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Limited (2006) [284 ITR 582](Karnataka High Court) (3) M/S Rajasthan Urban Drinking ... vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [ITAT Jaipur ITA No. 713 & 714/JP/2018] (Feb-2019)] (4) Deputy Commissioner of Income ... vs Rajasthan Avas Vikas & Infrastructure Ltd (ITAT Jaipur ITA No. 486/JP/2018] (May 2018) (5) Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corpn. V.…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1116/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…h of this Court in the case of KUIDFC 1(2009) 315 ITR 301], supra, has held thus:- "An identical question had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in (CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation [2006] 284 ITR 582), I.T.A. No. 2418 of 2005 between the same parties, decided on February 21, 2006 The said judgment has been placed for consideration before us and we have gone through it. Essentially, the Tribunal has also placed reliance on the said judgment and accordingly held in favour of tine assessee. We have no doubt in our mind that the said judgment sq…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1115/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…h of this Court in the case of KUIDFC 1(2009) 315 ITR 301], supra, has held thus:- "An identical question had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in (CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation [2006] 284 ITR 582), I.T.A. No. 2418 of 2005 between the same parties, decided on February 21, 2006 The said judgment has been placed for consideration before us and we have gone through it. Essentially, the Tribunal has also placed reliance on the said judgment and accordingly held in favour of tine assessee. We have no doubt in our mind that the said judgment sq…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1114/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…h of this Court in the case of KUIDFC 1(2009) 315 ITR 301], supra, has held thus:- "An identical question had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in (CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation [2006] 284 ITR 582), I.T.A. No. 2418 of 2005 between the same parties, decided on February 21, 2006 The said judgment has been placed for consideration before us and we have gone through it. Essentially, the Tribunal has also placed reliance on the said judgment and accordingly held in favour of tine assessee. We have no doubt in our mind that the said judgment sq…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…h of this Court in the case of KUIDFC 1(2009) 315 ITR 301], supra, has held thus:- "An identical question had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in (CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation [2006] 284 ITR 582), I.T.A. No. 2418 of 2005 between the same parties, decided on February 21, 2006 The said judgment has been placed for consideration before us and we have gone through it. Essentially, the Tribunal has also placed reliance on the said judgment and accordingly held in favour of tine assessee. We have no doubt in our mind that the said judgment sq…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…h of this Court in the case of KUIDFC 1(2009) 315 ITR 301], supra, has held thus:- "An identical question had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in (CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation [2006] 284 ITR 582), I.T.A. No. 2418 of 2005 between the same parties, decided on February 21, 2006 The said judgment has been placed for consideration before us and we have gone through it. Essentially, the Tribunal has also placed reliance on the said judgment and accordingly held in favour of tine assessee. We have no doubt in our mind that the said judgment sq…

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SPECIAL RANGE - 1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1048/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…h of this Court in the case of KUIDFC 1(2009) 315 ITR 301], supra, has held thus:- "An identical question had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in (CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation [2006] 284 ITR 582), I.T.A. No. 2418 of 2005 between the same parties, decided on February 21, 2006 The said judgment has been placed for consideration before us and we have gone through it. Essentially, the Tribunal has also placed reliance on the said judgment and accordingly held in favour of tine assessee. We have no doubt in our mind that the said judgment sq…

M/S BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY.DAIRY PLANT, BHOPAL vs. DCIT -1 (1) ,BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

ITA 128/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patva, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Amit Soni, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…ements: (i) CIT, Gandhinagar Vs. Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Ltd (2015) 60 taxmann.com 493 (Guj) (ii) CIT-II Vs. Sar Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Tax Appeal No. 855 of 2013 order dated 03.10.2013 (Guj) (iii) CIT vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure (2006) 284 ITR 582 (Kar) (iv) CIT, Gandhinagar vs. Gujarat Urban Development Company Limited Tax Appeal No. 71 of 2015 (Guj) The Ld. AR argued that in all these cases, the Hon’ble Courts have held that the interest income earned on grant and subsidy received from Govt. is not taxable as income of assesse. The Ld. AR submitted that the present issue is well-covere…

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4