ITO v. Urban Improvement Trust

409 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2018#20794 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(20)Section 10(20A)Section 10(46)Section 10(46A)Section 250Section 12Section 12ASection 4

Issues it is cited on

section 24asection 10(20a)public servantsection 10(46)section 10(20)section 74section 39section 73section 38mlisection 21section 33

Judgments citing ITO v. Urban Improvement Trust

Unit Improvement Trust, Bharatpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 950/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Agarwal, CA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, ld. DR
Section 10(20)Section 11(2)Section 250Section 3

…on is not falling in any of the category above hence benefit of section 10(20) is no more available to the assessee w.e.f Assessment Year 2003-04. This issue further reached up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Urban Improvement Trust (2018) 409 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it was held as under:- “The Urban Improvement Trust constituted under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 cannot be held to be covered by the definition of municipal committee as contained in Explanation (iii). The expression “municipal committee” occurring in clause (iii) has a definite purpose and object. The purpose and objec…

Unit Improvement Trust, Bharatpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 949/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Agarwal, CA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, ld. DR
Section 10(20)Section 11(2)Section 250Section 3

…on is not falling in any of the category above hence benefit of section 10(20) is no more available to the assessee w.e.f Assessment Year 2003-04. This issue further reached up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Urban Improvement Trust (2018) 409 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it was held as under:- “The Urban Improvement Trust constituted under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 cannot be held to be covered by the definition of municipal committee as contained in Explanation (iii). The expression “municipal committee” occurring in clause (iii) has a definite purpose and object. The purpose and objec…

Urban Improvement Trust (Now Kota Development Authority), Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 811/JPR/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

…ion is not falling in any of the category above hence benefit of section 10(2) is no more available to the assessee w.e.f Assessment Year 2003-04. This issue further reached up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Urban Improvement Trust (2018) 409 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it was held as under:- “The Urban Improvement Trust constituted under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 cannot be held to be covered by the definition of municipal committee as contained in Explanation (iii). The expression “municipal committee” occurring in clause (iii) has a definite purpose and object. The purpose and obje…

ACIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 717/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

…ion is not falling in any of the category above hence benefit of section 10(2) is no more available to the assessee w.e.f Assessment Year 2003-04. This issue further reached up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Urban Improvement Trust (2018) 409 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it was held as under:- “The Urban Improvement Trust constituted under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 cannot be held to be covered by the definition of municipal committee as contained in Explanation (iii). The expression “municipal committee” occurring in clause (iii) has a definite purpose and object. The purpose and obje…