U.P.Pollution Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Limited

2 SCC 549Reported decision2001#1639 most cited

What is U.P.Pollution Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Limited authority for?

The right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes the fundamental right to shelter, encompassing adequate living space, safe structures, clean surroundings, and essential amenities.

69

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Chameli Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh · 2 SCC 549 · right to shelter · Article 21 · fundamental rights · right to life · housing schemes · Article 39(b) · constitutional law · state obligation

Sections most often in play

Section 10(20A)Section 11Section 13(3)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)section 58section 4(2)section 10(20)section 12aa(3)section 60section 55section 13(3)section 13(1)(c)section 11(5)proviso to section 2(15)section 13(1)

Judgments citing U.P.Pollution Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Limited

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FORMELY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),LUCKNOW vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

ITA 145/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…nder/ auction. Further, shops in colonies and shops for vegetable vendors, etc. are allotted through lottery system while leftover commercial properties are only auctioned as per Government Guidelines. In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996) 2 SCC 549: The Supreme Court said that Article 21 “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty” can only be fulfilled with the right to shelter with adequate living space, safe and decent structures, clean surroundings, light, air, water, electricity, and sanitation. This is being achieved by the State Government through various EWS & LIG Housing Schem…

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1073/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…cial properties are so, only to the government or only auctioned as per Government state; the extent to which the Guidelines. state or its instrumentalities have control over the In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh corporation or its bodies, and (1996) 2 SCC 549: The Supreme Court said whether it is subject to that Article 21 “Protection of Life and directions by the concerned Personal Liberty” can only be fulfilled with government, etc.; the right to shelter with adequate living space, safe and decent structures, clean surroundings, light, air, water, electricity, and sanitation. This is being achieved by…

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1072/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…cial properties are so, only to the government or only auctioned as per Government state; the extent to which the Guidelines. state or its instrumentalities have control over the In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh corporation or its bodies, and (1996) 2 SCC 549: The Supreme Court said whether it is subject to that Article 21 “Protection of Life and directions by the concerned Personal Liberty” can only be fulfilled with government, etc.; the right to shelter with adequate living space, safe and decent structures, clean surroundings, light, air, water, electricity, and sanitation. This is being achieved by…

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1071/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…cial properties are so, only to the government or only auctioned as per Government state; the extent to which the Guidelines. state or its instrumentalities have control over the In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh corporation or its bodies, and (1996) 2 SCC 549: The Supreme Court said whether it is subject to that Article 21 “Protection of Life and directions by the concerned Personal Liberty” can only be fulfilled with government, etc.; the right to shelter with adequate living space, safe and decent structures, clean surroundings, light, air, water, electricity, and sanitation. This is being achieved by…

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 273/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…cial properties are so, only to the government or only auctioned as per Government state; the extent to which the Guidelines. state or its instrumentalities have control over the In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh corporation or its bodies, and (1996) 2 SCC 549: The Supreme Court said whether it is subject to that Article 21 “Protection of Life and directions by the concerned Personal Liberty” can only be fulfilled with government, etc.; the right to shelter with adequate living space, safe and decent structures, clean surroundings, light, air, water, electricity, and sanitation. This is being achieved by…

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 520/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…auction.\nFurther, shops in colonies and shops \nfor vegetable vendors, etc. are \nallotted through lottery system while \nleftover commercial properties are \nonly auctioned as per Government \nGuidelines.\nIn Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar \nPradesh (1996) 2 SCC 549: The \nSupreme Court said that Article 21\n42\n“Protection of Life and Personal \nLiberty” can only be fulfilled with the \nright to shelter with adequate living \nspace, safe and decent structures, \nclean surroundings, light, air, water, \nelectricity, and sanitation. This is \nbeing achieved by the State \nGovernment through various EWS & \nLIG…

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 518/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…ction. \nFurther, shops in colonies and shops \nfor vegetable vendors, etc. are \nallotted through lottery system while \nleftover commercial properties are \nonly auctioned as per Government \nGuidelines. \nIn Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar \nPradesh (1996) 2 SCC 549: The \nSupreme Court said that Article 21 \n43\n“Protection of Life and Personal \nLiberty” can only be fulfilled with the \nright to shelter with adequate living \nspace, safe and decent structures, \nclean surroundings, light, air, water, \nelectricity, and sanitation. This is \nbeing achieved by the State \nGovernment through various EWS & \nLIG…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…Commerce as its President and the administrative control vests with the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. It was registered as a charitable GPU category society in 58 Inserted by Finance (2) Act, 2014 and amended by Finance Act, 2020 59 (1996) 2 SCC 549. The court had cited Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 and relied on Sri. P.G. Gupta v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 1995 (1) SCALE 653 - where a Bench of three Judges of this Court had considered the mandate of the human right to sh…

EIH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2642/DEL/2015[2004-05 (F.Y. 2003-04)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

Section 133ASection 192Section 201(1)

…07 (Bom); The Rambagh Palace Hotel vs The Rajasthan Hotel Worker's Union (1976) 4 SCC 817 (SC); The Central Bank of India v. Their Workmen (I960) 47 AIR 12 (SC); Quality Inn Southern Star v The Regional Director, Employees State; Insurance Corporation [2008] 2 SCC 549; v) Nehru Place Hotels Ltd v Income Tax Officer, Ward 50(2), New Delhi 173 Taxman 88; HUDA and Anr v. Babeswar Kanhar and Anr I SCC 191; vii) CIT v Nestle India Ltd (2000) 243 ITR 435 (Del)". Not convinced with the explanation offered referring to section 15, 16 and 17 of the 4.1. Income tax Act, 1961, the AO concluded that TIPS (which is an ac…

M/S.S B MINERALS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/17000/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of forest produce, disposed of by the State Government or by a Corporation, owned or controlled or a body notified by the State Government. That the impugned notification dated 16/08…

M/S KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15432/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of forest produce, disposed of by the State Government or by a Corporation, owned or controlled or a body notified by the State Government. That the impugned notification dated 16/08…

M/S GAVISIDDESWARA ENTERPRISES vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/17583/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of forest produce, disposed of by the State Government or by a Corporation, owned or controlled or a body notified by the State Government. That the impugned notification dated 16/08…

SMT.R.MALLAMMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/31145/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of forest produce, disposed of by the State Government or by a Corporation, owned or controlled or a body notified by the State Government. That the impugned notification dated 16/08…

S V SRINIVASULU S/O LATE S.V.CHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15795/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of forest produce, disposed of by the State Government or by a Corporation, owned or controlled or a body notified by the State Government. That the impugned notification dated 16/08…

SRI. M.SRINIVASULU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15985/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of forest produce, disposed of by the State Government or by a Corporation, owned or controlled or a body notified by the State Government. That the impugned notification dated 16/08…

M/S MEHBOOB TRANSPORT COMPANY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15954/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of forest produce, disposed of by the State Government or by a Corporation, owned or controlled or a body notified by the State Government. That the impugned notification dated 16/08…

M/S. S.B MINERALS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/31129/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of forest produce, disposed of by the State Government or by a Corporation, owned or controlled or a body notified by the State Government. That the impugned notification dated 16/08…

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHIAH & BROS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/16145/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of forest produce, disposed of by the State Government or by a Corporation, owned or controlled or a body notified by the State Government. That the impugned notification dated 16/08…

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORE LTD, vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/31148/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of forest produce, disposed of by the State Government or by a Corporation, owned or controlled or a body notified by the State Government. That the impugned notification dated 16/08…

SRI.S.A.THAWAB vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/10712/2009HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of forest produce, disposed of by the State Government or by a Corporation, owned or controlled or a body notified by the State Government. That the impugned notification dated 16/08…

Showing 1–20 of 69 · Page 1 of 4