Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority v. CIT

103 TTJ 988Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#14654 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

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

Judgments citing Punjab Urban Planning & 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…

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)

…re quite relevant, which we shall discuss in brief: ITA No.5701/Mum/2014 A.Y.2011-12 13 Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority Vs. Dy. DIT (Exemption)-1(1) “i. Insofar as the decision in the case of Punjab Urban 0evelopment Authority Vs CIT (2006) 103 TTJ 988 (Chandigarh)], is concerned, the same has been considered in a later decision of Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs. ITO Ward, 1 (61 Taxmann.com 162) where m the Hon’ble Tribunal has distinguished the decision the case of PUDA thus “39. As for the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of the. Punjab Urban Development Authority u/s.CIT 1(2006…

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

…y the State Govt., it cannot be said to be set up for “charitable purposes”. It was further noted that the objects of the assessee are similar to the objects of Punjab Urban Planning Development Authority whose issue is decided by coordinate bench reported in 103 TTJ 988. It was held therein that the activities 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 circumstanc…

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

…y the State Govt., it cannot be said to be set up for “charitable purposes”. It was further noted that the objects of the assessee are similar to the objects of Punjab Urban Planning Development Authority whose issue is decided by coordinate bench reported in 103 TTJ 988. It was held therein that the activities 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 circumstanc…

M/S. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun vs. CIT, Dehradun

In the result we dismiss the appeal of the assessee

ITA 180/DEL/2013[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2017

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year:

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh B. Chhibber, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Varma, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…tion is set up by the Govt. it cannot be said to be set for „charitable purposes‟. c. It was further noted that the objects of the assessee are similar to the objects of Punjab Urban Planning Development Authority whose issue is decided by coordinate bench in 103 TTJ 988 wherein the order of rejection of application for registration u/s 12AA was upheld. It was held that the activities and objects are more of commercialized nature and no charity involved in it. Musssoorie Dehradun Development Authority V CIT, Dehradun ITA No 180/Del/2013 Page 4 of 30 d. The ld CIT further relied on the decision of Amritsar Bench…

Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority v. CIT (103 TTJ 988) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax