Industrial Area Development Authority v. Union of India

283 ITR 97Supreme Court of India2006#3176 most cited

What is Industrial Area Development Authority v. Union of India authority for?

Institutions established for specific purposes are not considered 'local authorities' for the purpose of Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority v. Union of India · 283 ITR 97 · SC · section 10(20) · local authority · institutions for specific purposes

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

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 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

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 Kendra, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 1962/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…

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

ITA 806/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3

…ies and objects are more of commercialized nature and no charity involved in it. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble in case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority vs UOI reported Page 7 of 56 ITA Nos. 394/Bang/2013 & 806/Bang/2014 in 283 ITR 97 (2006), wherein in identical circumstances application under section 12A was rejected. 10. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the CBDT Circular No. 11/2008 dated 19.12.2008 which explained the amendment made by the Finance Act 2008, wherein advancement of any other object of general public utility was further explained. The Ld.CIT(A) further held that the ob…

Karnataka Housing Board vs. Addl.DIT

ITA 394/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3

…ies and objects are more of commercialized nature and no charity involved in it. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble in case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority vs UOI reported Page 7 of 56 ITA Nos. 394/Bang/2013 & 806/Bang/2014 in 283 ITR 97 (2006), wherein in identical circumstances application under section 12A was rejected. 10. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the CBDT Circular No. 11/2008 dated 19.12.2008 which explained the amendment made by the Finance Act 2008, wherein advancement of any other object of general public utility was further explained. The Ld.CIT(A) further held that the ob…

ACIT, Circle- 78(1), New Delhi vs. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6612/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(2)Section 10(20)Section 133ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 201(1)

…Ltd., which is apparently not only in contradiction of the judgement of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 1338/2005 dated 28.02.2011 but also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Adityapur Area Development Authority Vs UOI & Others 283 ITR 97? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on payment of interest to NOIDA? 4. The order of the CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts needs to be vacated and the order of the ACIT be restored. 5. That the appellant crave…

Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi vs. ACIT Circle-4, Agra

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 149/AGR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…7)  M/s VanitaSamaj Vs DIT(E) ITA No.1034/Mum/2012 ITAT Mumbai dt. 26.02.2014 [ Page No. 71 ]  Rajasthan Housing Board vs. CIT [2012] 21 taxman.com 77 (ITAT Jaipur) [ Page No. 72 ]  Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority vs.Union of India [2006] 283 ITR 97 SC [ Page No.72 ] The nature of activities of development authorities constituted by “the Act” have been examined by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court as well as various benches of Hon’ble ITAT. It has been consistently held that the activities of the appellant are not of commercial nature. The appellant relies upon the following judgments : (i)…

ACIT Circle-4, Agra vs. Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 355/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…7)  M/s VanitaSamaj Vs DIT(E) ITA No.1034/Mum/2012 ITAT Mumbai dt. 26.02.2014 [ Page No. 71 ]  Rajasthan Housing Board vs. CIT [2012] 21 taxman.com 77 (ITAT Jaipur) [ Page No. 72 ]  Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority vs.Union of India [2006] 283 ITR 97 SC [ Page No.72 ] The nature of activities of development authorities constituted by “the Act” have been examined by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court as well as various benches of Hon’ble ITAT. It has been consistently held that the activities of the appellant are not of commercial nature. The appellant relies upon the following judgments : (i)…

Jhasi Development Authority, Jhansi vs. Dy. C.I.T., Circle-4, Agra

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 256/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…7)  M/s VanitaSamaj Vs DIT(E) ITA No.1034/Mum/2012 ITAT Mumbai dt. 26.02.2014 [ Page No. 71 ]  Rajasthan Housing Board vs. CIT [2012] 21 taxman.com 77 (ITAT Jaipur) [ Page No. 72 ]  Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority vs.Union of India [2006] 283 ITR 97 SC [ Page No.72 ] The nature of activities of development authorities constituted by “the Act” have been examined by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court as well as various benches of Hon’ble ITAT. It has been consistently held that the activities of the appellant are not of commercial nature. The appellant relies upon the following judgments : (i)…

ACIT, Circle- 78(1), New Delhi vs. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4560/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Ms. Kanika Jain, Adv
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 133ASection 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)(f)Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4559 & 4560/DEL/2017 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 ACIT, vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd., Circle-78(1), 6, Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACU 1482H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR Respondent by: Ms. Kanika Jain, Adv. Date of hearing: 23 09 2019 Date of pronouncement: 20 12 2019 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned order of even da…

ACIT, Circle- 78(1), New Delhi vs. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4559/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Ms. Kanika Jain, Adv
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 133ASection 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)(f)Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4559 & 4560/DEL/2017 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 ACIT, vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd., Circle-78(1), 6, Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACU 1482H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR Respondent by: Ms. Kanika Jain, Adv. Date of hearing: 23 09 2019 Date of pronouncement: 20 12 2019 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned order of even da…

ACIT, Cir-1, Durgapur vs. Asansol Durgapur Development Authority, Durgapur

In the result the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1448/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Srihari, CITFor Respondent: Shri Samir Chakrabrty, Sr.Advocate
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 28Section 43B

…ITA Nos.1447 & 1448/Kol/2016 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority A.Y.2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘A’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, AM & Smt. Madhumita Roy, JM ] ITA.Nos.1447 & 1448/Kol//2016 Assessment year : 2010-11 A.C.I.T., Circle-1 -versus- Asansol Durgapur Development Kolkata Authority, Kolkata (PAN: AAALA 0733 G) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT For the Respondent: Shri Samir Chakrabrty, Sr.Advocate, Shri Amar Chakraborty,Advocate & Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate Date of Hearing : 23.05.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 06.06.2018. ORD…

ACIT, Cir-1, Durgapur vs. Asansol Durgapur Development Authority, Durgapur

In the result the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1447/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Srihari, CITFor Respondent: Shri Samir Chakrabrty, Sr.Advocate
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 28Section 43B

…ITA Nos.1447 & 1448/Kol/2016 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority A.Y.2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘A’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, AM & Smt. Madhumita Roy, JM ] ITA.Nos.1447 & 1448/Kol//2016 Assessment year : 2010-11 A.C.I.T., Circle-1 -versus- Asansol Durgapur Development Kolkata Authority, Kolkata (PAN: AAALA 0733 G) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT For the Respondent: Shri Samir Chakrabrty, Sr.Advocate, Shri Amar Chakraborty,Advocate & Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate Date of Hearing : 23.05.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 06.06.2018. ORD…

ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata vs. Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata

ITA 412/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: N. K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate
Section 10(20)Section 143(3)Section 3Section 3(31)

…04/2010 received by this officer on 03/05/2010. Please refer to the above. Reasons recorded for re-opening for A.Y. 2003-04 in your case stand as under: "The Supreme Court In the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority v. Union of India [2006] 283 ITR 97 has held that income of an authority, even constituted by a notification under an Act enacted by the Legislature, is not the income of the Government and the Authority cannot claim exemption from Union taxation. The Prime Minister's Council on Trade and Industry in its recommendation on Ports under Infrastructure Development has recommended that '…

Asansol Durgapur Development Authority, Durgapur vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kolkta, Durgapur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ]

For Appellant: Dr.Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…rival sub missions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority – vs.- Union of India reported in (2006) 283 ITR 97 (SC) observing that the circumstances were similar as in the present cases, but he has not considered the above noted relevant statutory requirements applicable in the A..Y. 2009-10& 2010-11 case of assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) for all the three years and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer…

Asansol Durgapur Development Authority, Durgapur vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Durgapur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1328/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ]

For Appellant: Dr.Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…rival sub missions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority – vs.- Union of India reported in (2006) 283 ITR 97 (SC) observing that the circumstances were similar as in the present cases, but he has not considered the above noted relevant statutory requirements applicable in the A..Y. 2009-10& 2010-11 case of assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) for all the three years and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer…

Dy D.I.T. (E)-I(1), Mumbai vs. The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 4177/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13

…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.…

M/S. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. The ADIT(E) RG- 1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3841/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13

…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.…