State Road Transport Corporation v. Commissioner of Income

286 ITR 350High Court2006#9636 most cited

What is State Road Transport Corporation v. Commissioner of Income authority for?

A State Road Transport Corporation is not a 'local authority' for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, its income is taxable.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

State Road Transport Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax · 286 ITR 350 · Section 10(20) · local authority · income exemption · taxable income · U.P. State Road Transport Corporation · Calcutta State Transport Corporation · U.P. Forest Corporation

Sections most often in play

Section 10(20)Section 10(20A)Section 11Section 113Section 114Section 118Section 12Section 12A

Issues it is cited on

section 40(1)section 24asection 40(3)section 10(20a)section 160section 10(20)advancement of general public utilitysection 46asection 113section 114section 13(3)cancellation of registration

Judgments citing State Road Transport Corporation v. Commissioner of Income

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), 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)

…ssee 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. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel squarely admitte…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), 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)

…ssee 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. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel squarely admitte…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), 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

…ssee 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. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel squarely admitt…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4395/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 4391, 4392,4393,4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA NOs. 34 & 35/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2011-12) Mumbai Metropolitan Region v. DDIT (Exemption) – 1(1) Development Authority (MMRDA) Room No. 519, 5th Floor Plot No. C-14 & C-15 Piramal Chambers Bandra Kurla Complex Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 4986, 4987, 4988,4989,4990/MUM/2…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 4391, 4392,4393,4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA NOs. 34 & 35/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2011-12) Mumbai Metropolitan Region v. DDIT (Exemption) – 1(1) Development Authority (MMRDA) Room No. 519, 5th Floor Plot No. C-14 & C-15 Piramal Chambers Bandra Kurla Complex Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 4986, 4987, 4988,4989,4990/MUM/2…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 4391, 4392,4393,4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA NOs. 34 & 35/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2011-12) Mumbai Metropolitan Region v. DDIT (Exemption) – 1(1) Development Authority (MMRDA) Room No. 519, 5th Floor Plot No. C-14 & C-15 Piramal Chambers Bandra Kurla Complex Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 4986, 4987, 4988,4989,4990/MUM/2…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 4391, 4392,4393,4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA NOs. 34 & 35/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2011-12) Mumbai Metropolitan Region v. DDIT (Exemption) – 1(1) Development Authority (MMRDA) Room No. 519, 5th Floor Plot No. C-14 & C-15 Piramal Chambers Bandra Kurla Complex Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 4986, 4987, 4988,4989,4990/MUM/2…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 4391, 4392,4393,4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA NOs. 34 & 35/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2011-12) Mumbai Metropolitan Region v. DDIT (Exemption) – 1(1) Development Authority (MMRDA) Room No. 519, 5th Floor Plot No. C-14 & C-15 Piramal Chambers Bandra Kurla Complex Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 4986, 4987, 4988,4989,4990/MUM/2…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3690/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Mumbai Metropolitan Vs. Director Of Income Tax Region Development (Exemptions), Mumbai Authority, Plot No. C-14 & 15, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaatm7106R Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 263

…(20) of the I.T. Act. Hence, its income from house property, interest, etc is liable to be' tax. Reliance is placed in the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Commissioner of Income tax (2006) 286 ITR 350 (ALL.) wherein it has been held that the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation is not a Local Authority within the meaning of section 10(20) of the I.T. Act,1961 and its, income from house property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. While 7 Mumbai Me…

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

…ssee 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. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel squarely ad…

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

…ssee 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. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel squarely ad…

State Road Transport Corporation v. Commissioner of Income (286 ITR 350) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax