← All Phrases

“Section 10(20)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(20)145 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(20) is Exide Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (292 ITR 470), cited in 320 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(20)

Exide Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
292 ITR 470 · 2007 · High Court
320
citing judgments

The Calcutta High Court held that restricting deduction for leave encashment via Section 43B(f) was arbitrary and contrary to Supreme Court decisions. However, this judgment was later stayed by the Supreme Court.

Union of India v. Exide Industries
425 ITR 1 · 2020 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments

The provision for leave encashment is allowable as a deduction only on an actual payment basis under Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 43B(f).

CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd.
345 ITR 135 · 2012 · High Court
116
citing judgments

The High Court explains the scope and conditions for exercising revisional power under Section 263, emphasizing that an assessment order can be revised only if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

CIT v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities
135 ITR 485 · 1982 · High Court
98
citing judgments

The income of a charitable trust, particularly income from property held under trust, for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 11, must be computed in a normal commercial manner, without strict reference to the computation provisions for different heads of income like Section 14 or Section 24(a). This approach ensures that the income available for application or accumulation is assessed on commercial principles.

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. ITO
52 ITR 524 · 1964 · Supreme Court
69
citing judgments

A state road transport corporation, though state-owned, is a separate legal entity from the State. Its income is distinct from the income of the State and is not exempt from income tax under Article 289 of the Constitution of India.

CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan
286 ITR 274 · 2006 · High Court
66
citing judgments

Section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, which allows for filing a belated return, acts as a proviso to Section 139(1). Consequently, the time limit for depositing amounts or utilizing funds to claim exemptions, such as under Section 54, extends up to the due date for filing a return under Section 139(4).

CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal
339 ITR 610 · 2011 · High Court
66
citing judgments

A return of income filed within the period allowed under Section 139(4) is valid for claiming exemptions and deductions, including those under Sections 54, 54F, and 80AC. However, depositing the unutilized capital gains in the Capital Gains Account Scheme is a statutory and mandatory requirement for claiming exemption under Section 54F.

CEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd.
20 ITR 451 · 1951 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

Income derived from leasing a business asset is considered business income under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Judgments citing Section 10(20)

Municipal Council Dongargarh, Rajnandgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1/Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 625/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 625/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Municipal Council Dongargarh, Vs Ito, Ward-1/Rajnandgaon, Income C/O Chief Municipal Officer, Tax Office, Raipur Naka, Municipal Council, Dongargarh, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, 491441 Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, 491445 Pan: Aamfm7895D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Khandelwal, Ca & Ms. Swati Khandelwal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2018-19 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Khandelwal, CA and Ms. Swati Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

Ward-1/Rajnandgaon 6. In view the discussion held in the foregoing paras and the provisions of law as laid down under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, the "Municipal Council, Dongargarh" being covered under the definition of a local authority, its income is treated as exempt. Therefore ... extent of Rs. 1,05,52,029/- for F.Y. 2019-20 relevant to A.Y. 2020-21 is treated as exempt under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act.. Therefore, the case of the assessee is Not found to be a fit for issuance of notice

M/S. Cane Development Council, Titawi, Uttar Pradesh vs. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6478/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6478/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Cane Development Council, Vs Income Tax Officer, Titawi, Opp. Railway Station, Ward-1(2), Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaalc0173E Assessee By: Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar’S Order Dated 09.01.2018 In Case No. 1643-7909-1280-416, In Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(20)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

DCIT, Circle-77(1), Delhi vs. Splendor Landbase Limited, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 2410/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balanganesh

Section 194Section 194ISection 196Section 201Section 201(1)

CBDT, No TDS is required to be deducted on the rent or lease payment to Government/Local Authority / Statutory Authority as referred in section 10(20) of the Act. Further DDA is held to be a local authority by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India

DCIT, Circle 77(1), Delhi vs. Splendor Landbase Limited, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 2408/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balanganesh

Section 194Section 194ISection 196Section 201Section 201(1)

CBDT, No TDS is required to be deducted on the rent or lease payment to Government/Local Authority / Statutory Authority as referred in section 10(20) of the Act. Further DDA is held to be a local authority by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India

ACIT, Circle-2, Noida vs. Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6732/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

account of business activities of the assessee. Moreover, from AY 2014-15 onwards, the Department has already issued exemption certificate under section 10(20) of Income Tax Act to the assessee. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), which may warrant

Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6541/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

account of business activities of the assessee. Moreover, from AY 2014-15 onwards, the Department has already issued exemption certificate under section 10(20) of Income Tax Act to the assessee. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), which may warrant

Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6540/DEL/2018[20101-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

account of business activities of the assessee. Moreover, from AY 2014-15 onwards, the Department has already issued exemption certificate under section 10(20) of Income Tax Act to the assessee. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), which may warrant

Dj Amusements, 8/58 8/58, Chathankandath House vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakkad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 758/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Hon’Ble Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.758/Coch/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dj Amusements, The Income Tax Officer, Mankara P.O, Vs. Ward-1 & Tps, Palakkad – 678 614. Palakkad. Kerala Pan: Aahfd 2211P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sivadas Chettoor, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Smt Leena Lal, Snr Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ():

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettoor, C.A ""For Respondent: Smt Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 139

assessee contended that the rent payments were made to Punalur Municipality and Orkkatteri Panchayat, both of which are “local authorities” as defined under Section 10(20) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the binding CBDT Circular, no TDS was deductible, and consequently, the order passed under Sections

Gujarat State Agriculture Marketing Board, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1317/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 139Section 147Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Gujarat State Agriculture Marketing Board, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1316/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 139Section 147Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

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

view of the statutory status and the object of the trust, the appellant claimed to be a local authority within the meaning of section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and claimed exemption of its income. There was an amendment in section 10(20 ... observed that the assessee under consideration 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

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

view of the statutory status and the object of the trust, the appellant claimed to be a local authority within the meaning of section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and claimed exemption of its income. There was an amendment in section 10(20 ... observed that the assessee under consideration 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

major ports operating in India. The entire income of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) was exempt under the provisions of section 10(20) of the Act upto and including the assessment year 2002-03. For the purpose of section 10(20), the term ‘Local authority’ was given a restrictive meaning ... insertion of an Explanation to section 10(20) w.e.f. assessment year 2003-04. Hence, the income of the assessee became taxable. The assessee filed its return of income as a ‘local authority’ claiming no exemption u/s 10(20) for assessment year 2003-04 on 29.10.2003 declaring total loss of Rs.203

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

major ports operating in India. The entire income of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) was exempt under the provisions of section 10(20) of the Act upto and including the assessment year 2002-03. For the purpose of section 10(20), the term ‘Local authority’ was given a restrictive meaning ... insertion of an Explanation to section 10(20) w.e.f. assessment year 2003-04. Hence, the income of the assessee became taxable. The assessee filed its return of income as a ‘local authority’ claiming no exemption u/s 10(20) for assessment year 2003-04 on 29.10.2003 declaring total loss of Rs.203

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

major ports operating in India. The entire income of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) was exempt under the provisions of section 10(20) of the Act upto and including the assessment year 2002-03. For the purpose of section 10(20), the term ‘Local authority’ was given a restrictive meaning ... insertion of an Explanation to section 10(20) w.e.f. assessment year 2003-04. Hence, the income of the assessee became taxable. The assessee filed its return of income as a ‘local authority’ claiming no exemption u/s 10(20) for assessment year 2003-04 on 29.10.2003 declaring total loss of Rs.203

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

major ports operating in India. The entire income of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) was exempt under the provisions of section 10(20) of the Act upto and including the assessment year 2002-03. For the purpose of section 10(20), the term ‘Local authority’ was given a restrictive meaning ... insertion of an Explanation to section 10(20) w.e.f. assessment year 2003-04. Hence, the income of the assessee became taxable. The assessee filed its return of income as a ‘local authority’ claiming no exemption u/s 10(20) for assessment year 2003-04 on 29.10.2003 declaring total loss of Rs.203

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

major ports operating in India. The entire income of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) was exempt under the provisions of section 10(20) of the Act upto and including the assessment year 2002-03. For the purpose of section 10(20), the term ‘Local authority’ was given a restrictive meaning ... insertion of an Explanation to section 10(20) w.e.f. assessment year 2003-04. Hence, the income of the assessee became taxable. The assessee filed its return of income as a ‘local authority’ claiming no exemption u/s 10(20) for assessment year 2003-04 on 29.10.2003 declaring total loss of Rs.203

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

major ports operating in India. The entire income of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) was exempt under the provisions of section 10(20) of the Act upto and including the assessment year 2002-03. For the purpose of section 10(20), the term ‘Local authority’ was given a restrictive meaning ... insertion of an Explanation to section 10(20) w.e.f. assessment year 2003-04. Hence, the income of the assessee became taxable. The assessee filed its return of income as a ‘local authority’ claiming no exemption u/s 10(20) for assessment year 2003-04 on 29.10.2003 declaring total loss of Rs.203

Sachin Notified Area, Surat vs. Pr. CIT, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 248/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Sachin Notified Area, Surat vs. Pr. CIT, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 247/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT