Jalandhar Development Authority v. CIT

124 TTJ 598Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#3568 most cited

What is Jalandhar Development Authority v. CIT authority for?

An entity's claim for charitable status is assessed based on its specific activities and the application of its income, not solely on its classification as a development authority. Decisions involving similar authorities are often distinguished based on factual differences, particularly concerning the commercial nature of operations.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Jalandhar Development Authority v. CIT · 124 TTJ 598 · 35 SOT 15 · section 10(20A) · section 10(23C) · section 11 · section 12 · section 12A · section 12AA · section 13 · charitable nature · registration u/s 12A

Also reported as

35 SOT 15

Sections most often in play

Section 10(20A)Section 10(23C)Section 11Section 11(4A)Section 12Section 12ASection 12AASection 13

Issues it is cited on

section 13(8)proviso to section 2(15)section 2(15)section 10(23c)registration under section 12asection 12aasection 12asection 10section 12section 11transfersection 143(2)

Judgments citing Jalandhar Development Authority v. CIT

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 589/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.305/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19) M/s Ghaziabad Dy.CIT Development Authority Exemption Circle, Vikas Path, Hapur Road Vs. Ghaziabad Ghaziabad-201 001 PAN-AAALG 0072C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Somil Agrawal, Advocate and Sh. Deepesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Ritu Sharma, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 18/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement 07/02/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: The assessee preferred the i…

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT E (CIRCLE), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 305/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.305/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19) M/s Ghaziabad Dy.CIT Development Authority Exemption Circle, Vikas Path, Hapur Road Vs. Ghaziabad Ghaziabad-201 001 PAN-AAALG 0072C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Somil Agrawal, Advocate and Sh. Deepesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Ritu Sharma, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 18/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement 07/02/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: The assessee preferred the i…

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 267/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…the insertion of the proviso in Section 2(15), the assessee cannot be regarded to have been established for charitable purpose. Our view is also supported by the decision of the Amritsar Bench of the ITAT in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority Vs. CIT 124 TTJ 598(Amr.). The coordinate bench of this tribunal has also taken similar view in the case of ITA No. 26/PNJ/2012 in the case of Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. CIT vide order dtd. 22.06.2012 to which the undersigned is the author. Similar view has been taken coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of Entertainment Society of Goa Vs. C…

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 266/ALLD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…the insertion of the proviso in Section 2(15), the assessee cannot be regarded to have been established for charitable purpose. Our view is also supported by the decision of the Amritsar Bench of the ITAT in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority Vs. CIT 124 TTJ 598(Amr.). The coordinate bench of this tribunal has also taken similar view in the case of ITA No. 26/PNJ/2012 in the case of Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. CIT vide order dtd. 22.06.2012 to which the undersigned is the author. Similar view has been taken coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of Entertainment Society of Goa Vs. C…

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 265/ALLD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…the insertion of the proviso in Section 2(15), the assessee cannot be regarded to have been established for charitable purpose. Our view is also supported by the decision of the Amritsar Bench of the ITAT in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority Vs. CIT 124 TTJ 598(Amr.). The coordinate bench of this tribunal has also taken similar view in the case of ITA No. 26/PNJ/2012 in the case of Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. CIT vide order dtd. 22.06.2012 to which the undersigned is the author. Similar view has been taken coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of Entertainment Society of Goa Vs. C…

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 264/ALLD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…the insertion of the proviso in Section 2(15), the assessee cannot be regarded to have been established for charitable purpose. Our view is also supported by the decision of the Amritsar Bench of the ITAT in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority Vs. CIT 124 TTJ 598(Amr.). The coordinate bench of this tribunal has also taken similar view in the case of ITA No. 26/PNJ/2012 in the case of Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. CIT vide order dtd. 22.06.2012 to which the undersigned is the author. Similar view has been taken coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of Entertainment Society of Goa Vs. C…

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 24/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…pment/infrastructure/facilities are also provided by private developers these days, then they will also claim the status of a charitable institution. The Hon’ble Bench after relying on the decision in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority v. CIT [2010] 35 SOT 15 (Asr.) (URO), denied exemption to the assessee therein under Section11 of the Act. 6. The matter was thereafter carried to the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon’ble High Court in M/s Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) v. The Joint Director of Income Tax, (OSD) Kochi, ITANos.208,210/2014 held as under:- 11. Having clarified the fac…

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 23/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…pment/infrastructure/facilities are also provided by private developers these days, then they will also claim the status of a charitable institution. The Hon’ble Bench after relying on the decision in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority v. CIT [2010] 35 SOT 15 (Asr.) (URO), denied exemption to the assessee therein under Section11 of the Act. 6. The matter was thereafter carried to the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon’ble High Court in M/s Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) v. The Joint Director of Income Tax, (OSD) Kochi, ITANos.208,210/2014 held as under:- 11. Having clarified the fac…

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 211/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…pment/infrastructure/facilities are also provided by private developers these days, then they will also claim the status of a charitable institution. The Hon’ble Bench after relying on the decision in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority v. CIT [2010] 35 SOT 15 (Asr.) (URO), denied exemption to the assessee therein under Section11 of the Act. 6. The matter was thereafter carried to the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon’ble High Court in M/s Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) v. The Joint Director of Income Tax, (OSD) Kochi, ITANos.208,210/2014 held as under:- 11. Having clarified the fac…

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 210/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…pment/infrastructure/facilities are also provided by private developers these days, then they will also claim the status of a charitable institution. The Hon’ble Bench after relying on the decision in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority v. CIT [2010] 35 SOT 15 (Asr.) (URO), denied exemption to the assessee therein under Section11 of the Act. 6. The matter was thereafter carried to the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon’ble High Court in M/s Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) v. The Joint Director of Income Tax, (OSD) Kochi, ITANos.208,210/2014 held as under:- 11. Having clarified the fac…

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 165/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…pment/infrastructure/facilities are also provided by private developers these days, then they will also claim the status of a charitable institution. The Hon’ble Bench after relying on the decision in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority v. CIT [2010] 35 SOT 15 (Asr.) (URO), denied exemption to the assessee therein under Section11 of the Act. 6. The matter was thereafter carried to the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon’ble High Court in M/s Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) v. The Joint Director of Income Tax, (OSD) Kochi, ITANos.208,210/2014 held as under:- 11. Having clarified the fac…

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 164/LKW/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…pment/infrastructure/facilities are also provided by private developers these days, then they will also claim the status of a charitable institution. The Hon’ble Bench after relying on the decision in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority v. CIT [2010] 35 SOT 15 (Asr.) (URO), denied exemption to the assessee therein under Section11 of the Act. 6. The matter was thereafter carried to the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon’ble High Court in M/s Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) v. The Joint Director of Income Tax, (OSD) Kochi, ITANos.208,210/2014 held as under:- 11. Having clarified the fac…

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 631/LKW/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…pment/infrastructure/facilities are also provided by private developers these days, then they will also claim the status of a charitable institution. The Hon’ble Bench after relying on the decision in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority v. CIT [2010] 35 SOT 15 (Asr.) (URO), denied exemption to the assessee therein under Section11 of the Act. 6. The matter was thereafter carried to the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon’ble High Court in M/s Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) v. The Joint Director of Income Tax, (OSD) Kochi, ITANos.208,210/2014 held as under:- 11. Having clarified the fac…

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 630/LKW/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…pment/infrastructure/facilities are also provided by private developers these days, then they will also claim the status of a charitable institution. The Hon’ble Bench after relying on the decision in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority v. CIT [2010] 35 SOT 15 (Asr.) (URO), denied exemption to the assessee therein under Section11 of the Act. 6. The matter was thereafter carried to the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon’ble High Court in M/s Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) v. The Joint Director of Income Tax, (OSD) Kochi, ITANos.208,210/2014 held as under:- 11. Having clarified the fac…

MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5701/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akkhade
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…the basis of draw of lots and on a fixed price uninfluenced by market forces. We therefore find that decision in the case of PUDA has no application to the facts of the case. ii. Insofar as the decision in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority v/s. CIT (124 TTJ 598) (Asr), is concerned, the said decision was rendered on facts identical to that in PUDA's case and the Hon’ble Tribunal followed its decision m PUDA's case to hold that Jalandhar Development Authority is not entitled to registration u/s 12A. Hence, this decision too has no application to the facts of the present case. iii. As regard the decision…

ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, GHAZIABAD vs. SAHARANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SAHARANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1070/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)

…ew judgments,  CIT Vs Hridwar Development Authority [ITA No . 3056 &3013/Del/2013 dated 25.07.2014  CIT Vs Muzaffarnagar Development Authority  CIT Vs Khurja Development Authority [ITA No. 1851/Del/2009 dated 14 .07.2009]  Jalandhar Development Authority 124 TTJ 598 Page 5 of 8 ITA No.-1070/Del/2018 Saharanpur Development Authority.  The Improvement Trust, Moga Vs CIT, Ludhiana [ITA 365/ASR/2013 dated 16-09- 2015]  CIT Vs Sangrur Development Authority  CIT Vs Ghaziabad Development Authority in [ITA No. 2399/DEL/2014 dated 16.06.2019]  CIT Vs Jhansi Development Authority  CIT Vs Lucknow Development A…

ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SAHARANPUR vs. SAHARANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SAHARANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4113/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4113/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer (E), Vs Saharanpur Development Authority, Saharanpur, Yadavpuri, Near Ganna Bhawan, U.P. Saharanpur, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaals0359L Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Dilip Kothari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Kothari, CIT DR
Section 11

…a few judgments,  CIT Vs Hridwar Development Authority [ITA No. 3056 &3013/Del/2013 dated 25.07.2014  CIT Vs Muzaffarnagar Development Authority  CIT Vs Khurja Development Authority [ITA No. 1851/Del/2009 dated 14.07.2009]  Jalandhar Development Authority 124 TTJ 598  The Improvement Trust, Moga Vs CIT, Ludhiana [ITA 365/ASR/2013 dated 16-09-2015]  CIT Vs Sangrur Development Authority  CIT Vs Ghaziabad Development Authority in [ITA No. 2399/DEL/2014 dated 16.06.2019]  CIT Vs Jhansi Development Authority  CIT Vs Lucknow Development Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All.)  Agra Development Authority V…

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the Four appeals filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2877/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri T. Kipgan, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25Section 617

…he amended proviso to section 2(15) of the LT. Act:- (a) Decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar in the case of Jammu Development Authority Vs. CIT (ITA No.30(Asr).201 1 (52 SOT 153) (b) Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority Vs. CIT (35 SOT 15). (c) Chandigarh Bench in the case of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (156 Taxmann 37). (d) Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. CIT, Panaji dated 22.0o6.2012. (e) ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs. Jt, DIT(OSD)(E), Range-4, Kochi. (fi ADIT(E), Trivandrum Vs. Kerala Industrial Development…

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2883/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 2(25)

…he amended proviso to section 2(25) of the I.T. Act:- (a) Decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar in the case of Jammu Development Authority Vs. CIT (ITA No.30(Asr).2011 (52 SOT 153) (b) Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority Vs. CIT (35 SOT 15). (c) Chandigarh Bench in the case of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (156 Taxmann 37). (d) Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. CIT, Panaji dated 22.06.2012. (e) ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs. Jt. DIT(OSD)(E), Range-4, Kochi. (f) ADIT(E), Trivandrum Vs. Kerala Industrial Development…

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2881/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2013-14
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 2(25)

…he amended proviso to section 2(25) of the I.T. Act:- (a) Decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar in the case of Jammu Development Authority Vs. CIT (ITA No.30(Asr).2011 (52 SOT 153) (b) Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority Vs. CIT (35 SOT 15). (c) Chandigarh Bench in the case of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (156 Taxmann 37). (d) Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. CIT, Panaji dated 22.06.2012. (e) ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs. Jt. DIT(OSD)(E), Range-4, Kochi. (f) ADIT(E), Trivandrum Vs. Kerala Industrial Development…

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2