Industrial Area Development Authority v. Union of India

283 ITR 97Supreme Court of India2006#3218 most cited
37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12ASection 154Section 2(15)Section 10(20)Section 10(20A)Section 113Section 114

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205advancement of general public utilitysection 40(1)section 10(20a)section 10(23c)(iv)section 36(1)(v)section 24asection 40(3)section 10(20)section 160section 52

Judgments citing Industrial Area Development Authority v. Union of India

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)

…State” and consequently that Article 289 of the COI has no application: 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. ITO, B-I, B-Ward, Hyderabad & Another (52 ITR 524, SC) 2. Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority v. Union of India & Others (283 ITR 97, SC) The learned CIT(A) has extracted the relevant portions of APSRTC at para 6.1.1 of his order (Pages 16–22) and followed Adityapur to conclude that the Appellant cannot be treated as “State” under Article 289. Distinction Between APSRTC / Adityapur and Centre for e- Governance (CeG) It is respectfully submitted that the reliance placed by the l…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3795/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

…g local authority, after discussion in the order, held that assessee is not a local authority for the purpose of section 10(20). In doing so he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, 283 ITR 97 (SC), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT, 286 ITR 350, CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS CIT 219 ITR 515 (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) wherein it has been held that institutions set up for the specific purposes, does not amount to 'local authority' for the purpose of section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. 17.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3794/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

…g local authority, after discussion in the order, held that assessee is not a local authority for the purpose of section 10(20). In doing so he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, 283 ITR 97 (SC), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT, 286 ITR 350, CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS CIT 219 ITR 515 (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) wherein it has been held that institutions set up for the specific purposes, does not amount to 'local authority' for the purpose of section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. 17.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

ITA 3791/MUM/2023[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 11Section 126Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 3

…g local authority, after discussion in the order, held that assessee is not a local authority for the purpose of section 10(20). In doing so he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, 283 ITR 97 (SC), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT, 286 ITR 350, CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS CIT 219 ITR 515 (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) wherein it has been held that institutions set up for the specific purposes, does not amount to 'local authority' for the purpose of section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. 17…

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 520/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…s apparent from \nthe record that the Supreme Court has already dealt with this matter, and in \ndeference to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of \nAdityapur Industrial Area Development Authority v. Union of India [2006] \n153 Taxman 107/283 ITR 97, it is concluded that the substantial questions \nthat (i) whether 'State' would include the statutory authorities particularly \nthose which have been constituted exclusively for effective discharge of one \nof the State obligations and (ii) collection of levies in the nature of fees, \ncharges, tax etc. imposed by the State through an enactment,…

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 518/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…s apparent from \nthe record that the Supreme Court has already dealt with this matter, and in \ndeference to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of \nAdityapur Industrial Area Development Authority v. Union of India [2006] \n153 Taxman 107/283 ITR 97, it is concluded that the substantial questions \nthat (i) whether 'State' would include the statutory authorities particularly \nthose which have been constituted exclusively for effective discharge of one \nof the State obligations and (ii) collection of levies in the nature of fees, \ncharges, tax etc. imposed by the State through an enactment,…

DCIT (EXEMPTION)- 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MUMBAI

ITA 1765/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)

…UM/2023 (Mum ITAT) City and Industrial CO No. 88 & 89/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Vs ACIT-25 taxmann.com 333 (Mum) (ITAT) - Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority vs Union of India : (2006) 283 ITR 97 - Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. Vs ITO-52 ITR 524 (SC) 9.3. Per Contra, the Learned Departmental Representative made following submissions: “2. The assessee trust's claim for exemption from Union taxation on the ground that it is an extended arm of the Government cannot be sustained on account of the following reasons: 2.1 As per th…

PR.COMM.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/6/2017HC J&K13 Jul 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(f)Section 260ASection 40

…an obligation to deduct the TDS on the deposits of JDA. Reliance was placed by the Assessing Authority on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 283 ITR 97 (SC). On appeal by the assessee-Bank against the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu [‘CIT(A)’] accepted the plea of the assessee- Bank and held that, it was not required to deduct any tax at source on its interest payments made to the JDA. The CIT (A) relied upon an earlier ju…

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

…s of the corporation.” ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 35 of 60 5.10 Further, we place reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Development Authority (283 ITR 97), wherein held as under: “4. It would thus be seen that the income of a local authority chargeable under the head "Income from house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources" or from a trade or business carried on by it was earlier excluded in computing the total income of the Authority of a previous year. However, in view of the a…

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

…s of the corporation.” ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 35 of 60 5.10 Further, we place reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Development Authority (283 ITR 97), wherein held as under: “4. It would thus be seen that the income of a local authority chargeable under the head "Income from house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources" or from a trade or business carried on by it was earlier excluded in computing the total income of the Authority of a previous year. However, in view of the a…

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

…s of the corporation.” ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 35 of 60 5.10 Further, we place reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Development Authority (283 ITR 97), wherein held as under: “4. It would thus be seen that the income of a local authority chargeable under the head "Income from house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources" or from a trade or business carried on by it was earlier excluded in computing the total income of the Authority of a previous year. However, in view of the a…

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

…s of the corporation.” ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 35 of 60 5.10 Further, we place reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Development Authority (283 ITR 97), wherein held as under: “4. It would thus be seen that the income of a local authority chargeable under the head "Income from house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources" or from a trade or business carried on by it was earlier excluded in computing the total income of the Authority of a previous year. However, in view of the a…

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

…s of the corporation.” ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 35 of 60 5.10 Further, we place reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Development Authority (283 ITR 97), wherein held as under: “4. It would thus be seen that the income of a local authority chargeable under the head "Income from house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources" or from a trade or business carried on by it was earlier excluded in computing the total income of the Authority of a previous year. However, in view of the a…

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

…s of the corporation.” ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 35 of 60 5.10 Further, we place reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Development Authority (283 ITR 97), wherein held as under: “4. It would thus be seen that the income of a local authority chargeable under the head "Income from house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources" or from a trade or business carried on by it was earlier excluded in computing the total income of the Authority of a previous year. However, in view of the a…

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the solitary ground raised by the Revenue in the appeals are dismissed

ITA 146/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: PendingITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Rishi Educational A.C.I.T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaaar1952M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Esthen N Hangal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21/04/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Aop & Registered U/S 12A Of The I.T. Act Vide Proceedings Of The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) Hyderabad In F.No.Hqrs/I/15/12A/Dit(E) Dated 27.02.2003. The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The A.Y 2017-18 On 06.11.2017 Admitting Total Income Of Rs.Nil. M/S. Ravi Rishi Educational Society Is Run By Close Family Members Mr.N.Rajababu, Mr.Ramesh Babu, Mrs. N. Sulochana, Mrs. N. Yashoda, Mrs. N.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Esthen N Hangal, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…. Indian Tobacco Association [2005] 7 SCC 396 and CCE v. Hira Cement [2006] 2 JT 369 (SC). It is also trite law that an exemption is to be granted unless it is expressly taken away. (See Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority v. Union of India [2006] 283 ITR 97/158 Taxman 107 (SC)." 8. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Dismissed”. 20. We find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Gurudatta Shikshan Sanstha while deciding somewhat similar issue vide ITA No.843 & 844/PUN/2015 dated 2…

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…upon by the Ld. D.R.:-. S/No Description 1 Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of IndiainCivil AppealNo.6392of 2003 dtd.03.05.2006inthecaseofAdityapur Industrial Area Development Authority Vs. Union of India, reported in [2006] 153 Taxman 107 (SC) (2006) 283 ITR 97 (SC) (2006) 202 TR464(SC) 2 Judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin Bench in ITA 45 (Cochi) of 2017 & 111 (Coch.) of 2018 dtd 26-10-2018 in the case oNirmithi Kendra Vs. DCIT (Exemptions) reported in (2018) 100 taxmann.com 293 (Cochin-Trib.) 174 ITD 177 (Cochin- Trib.) 3 Judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT 'A' Bench, Bangalore in ITA 2069fB/2018 dtd 14-02…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…upon by the Ld. D.R.:-. S/No Description 1 Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of IndiainCivil AppealNo.6392of 2003 dtd.03.05.2006inthecaseofAdityapur Industrial Area Development Authority Vs. Union of India, reported in [2006] 153 Taxman 107 (SC) (2006) 283 ITR 97 (SC) (2006) 202 TR464(SC) 2 Judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin Bench in ITA 45 (Cochi) of 2017 & 111 (Coch.) of 2018 dtd 26-10-2018 in the case oNirmithi Kendra Vs. DCIT (Exemptions) reported in (2018) 100 taxmann.com 293 (Cochin-Trib.) 174 ITD 177 (Cochin- Trib.) 3 Judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT 'A' Bench, Bangalore in ITA 2069fB/2018 dtd 14-02…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…upon by the Ld. D.R.:-. S/No Description 1 Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of IndiainCivil AppealNo.6392of 2003 dtd.03.05.2006inthecaseofAdityapur Industrial Area Development Authority Vs. Union of India, reported in [2006] 153 Taxman 107 (SC) (2006) 283 ITR 97 (SC) (2006) 202 TR464(SC) 2 Judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin Bench in ITA 45 (Cochi) of 2017 & 111 (Coch.) of 2018 dtd 26-10-2018 in the case oNirmithi Kendra Vs. DCIT (Exemptions) reported in (2018) 100 taxmann.com 293 (Cochin-Trib.) 174 ITD 177 (Cochin- Trib.) 3 Judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT 'A' Bench, Bangalore in ITA 2069fB/2018 dtd 14-02…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…upon by the Ld. D.R.:-. S/No Description 1 Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of IndiainCivil AppealNo.6392of 2003 dtd.03.05.2006inthecaseofAdityapur Industrial Area Development Authority Vs. Union of India, reported in [2006] 153 Taxman 107 (SC) (2006) 283 ITR 97 (SC) (2006) 202 TR464(SC) 2 Judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin Bench in ITA 45 (Cochi) of 2017 & 111 (Coch.) of 2018 dtd 26-10-2018 in the case oNirmithi Kendra Vs. DCIT (Exemptions) reported in (2018) 100 taxmann.com 293 (Cochin-Trib.) 174 ITD 177 (Cochin- Trib.) 3 Judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT 'A' Bench, Bangalore in ITA 2069fB/2018 dtd 14-02…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…upon by the Ld. D.R.:-. S/No Description 1 Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of IndiainCivil AppealNo.6392of 2003 dtd.03.05.2006inthecaseofAdityapur Industrial Area Development Authority Vs. Union of India, reported in [2006] 153 Taxman 107 (SC) (2006) 283 ITR 97 (SC) (2006) 202 TR464(SC) 2 Judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin Bench in ITA 45 (Cochi) of 2017 & 111 (Coch.) of 2018 dtd 26-10-2018 in the case oNirmithi Kendra Vs. DCIT (Exemptions) reported in (2018) 100 taxmann.com 293 (Cochin-Trib.) 174 ITD 177 (Cochin- Trib.) 3 Judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT 'A' Bench, Bangalore in ITA 2069fB/2018 dtd 14-02…

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2