CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (284 ITR 582)

Q: 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.

Q: How many judgments cite CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation?

73 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (284 ITR 582), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 113, Section 115, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 155, Section 160.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Kappec Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1348/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleasst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore-560095 ….Appellant Vs. M/S. Kappec Ltd., No.17, General K S Thimmaiah Road, Richmond Road, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, JCIT(D.R)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ubmitted that the CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer as the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT & Anr. Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure & Finance 4 Corporation(Karnataka)(284 ITR 582) relied on by the CIT(Appeals) was challenged by the revenue and the Revenue has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Contra, the LdAr supported the orders of CIT(Appeals). 5. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The sole disputed issue argued by the ld.DR that the CIT(Appeals) has granted relief without appre…

Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 12/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Corporation Ltd., Income Tax 3(1), The Hitavada Parisar, Aaykar Bhavan, Avani Vihar, Civil Lines, Raipur (Cg). Raipur (Cg). Pan: Aaccc1772C

For Appellant: Shri Pauan Ved &For Respondent: Shri R.K. Singh, CIT, DR

…in character and, therefore, not assessable to tax. For the above proposition, the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corporation reported in (2006) 284 ITR 582 (Kar). It was argued that in the present case, the assessee is a nodal agency for implementing PDS and the money paid to it by the Government was to operate Food Security Scheme of the Government of India and the State Government. There is no other business done by the assessee. Relying on various decisions, it was submitted that the amounts r…

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

…accruing on such deposits could not be regarded as the income of the assessee corporation viz. MIDC, relied on the 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 i…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt Ltd

ITA/690/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…also referred and relied upon the Judgments of this Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Karnataka Power Corporation’ [247 ITR 268] and ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure and Development and Finance Corporation [284 ITR 582] and held that such interest income would go to reduce the capital cost of the project and is on the capital Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.690/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & another Vs. M/s Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt. Ltd. 4/11 account and the same cannot be taxed during the relevant year in which…

M/S Bank Note Paper Mill India Private Limited, Mysore vs. The Income Tax Officer Circle-1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 165/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Guruswamy, CIT (D.R)

…SC), Bokara Steel Ltd. (supra), and Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) and its own decision in the case of CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation, (247 ITR 268) and CIT vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure and Development and Finance Corporation (284 ITR 582) held that such interest income would go to reduce the capital cost of the project, is on the capital account and should not be brought to tax. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: “9. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we have noticed that the assessee-company is a Government owned company. In o…

Andhra Pradesh State Ploce Housing Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1527/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Laxminiwas Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

Section 43B

…income, but for and on behalf of agencies who have entrusted the assessee with the projects and given funds for the same. It was, in any case, to be refunded back. (Pg No.129-165)” 9.2. In Commissioner Of Income Tax And ... vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure 284 ITR 582 the Karnataka High Court held that: "The assessee in fact acted as an agent of the Governments of both the Central and the State for implementing the scheme of the Government, This being the factual position, the lower authorities committed serious error in treating the interest as income of the assessee and bringing the same to tax." Therefore,…