← 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)

Nagar Panchayat, Banda vs. The Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Sagar, Sagar

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

ITA 118/JAB/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Nagar Panchayat, Banda, Vs. The Acit, Nagar Parishad Building, Banda, Sagar, Circle Sagar, Sagar Banda Nagar S.O. Madhya Pradesh Pan:Aaaln0246R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 7.05.2024 Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Dcit, Circle-Sagar, Madhya Pradesh Passed On 10.12.2019 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre ('Nfac) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Sagar ('Ao) In Adding A Sum Of Rs. 68,21,182/- To The Income Of The Assessee U/S. 69A As Unexplained Money. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.3 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Is Opposed To The Principles Of Equity, Natural Justice & Fair Play.

For Appellant: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

State Government and collected lease rentals by giving the Nagar Panchayat properties on lease. It was submitted that as per the provisions of section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the income of the authority was exempt from income tax. It was further submitted that ... been uploaded and the DIN was 20121105088. He, therefore, dismissed this ground of the assessee. With regard to its claim for exemption under section 10(20) as it was a local authority, it was observed that despite numerous opportunities provided by the NFAC, the assessee had not furnished any documentary

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 3936/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

Maharashtra by enacting MMRDA Act, 1974. Being Local Authority in terms of MMRDA Act as well as falling within the meaning of Section 10(20) and 10(20A) of the Act, it enjoyed blanket exemption under the Act up to A.Y. 2002- 03 as per the then provisions of Section ... issue of assessee being local authority, after discussion in the order, held that assessee 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

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)

Maharashtra by enacting MMRDA Act, 1974. Being Local Authority in terms of MMRDA Act as well as falling within the meaning of Section 10(20) and 10(20A) of the Act, it enjoyed blanket exemption under the Act up to A.Y. 2002- 03 as per the then provisions of Section ... issue of assessee being local authority, after discussion in the order, held that assessee 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

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)

Maharashtra by enacting MMRDA Act, 1974. Being Local Authority in terms of MMRDA Act as well as falling within the meaning of Section 10(20) and 10(20A) of the Act, it enjoyed blanket exemption under the Act up to A.Y. 2002- 03 as per the then provisions of Section ... issue of assessee being local authority, after discussion in the order, held that assessee 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

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

Maharashtra by enacting MMRDA Act, 1974. Being Local Authority in terms of MMRDA Act as well as falling within the meaning of Section 10(20) and 10(20A) of the Act, it enjoyed blanket exemption under the Act up to A.Y. 2002- 03 as per the then provisions of Section ... issue of assessee being local authority, after discussion in the order, held that assessee 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

M/S. Blueray Trading Pvt Ltd., Maharastra vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/AHD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri K C Thaker, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

engaged in charitable activity. The Assessing Officer was of view that assessee was not a Local Authority within the meaning of Section 10(20), and further, in view of nature and activities carried out by the assessee and its legal status, assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11 could

Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Exemptions, Circle, Pune vs. Shree Warana Vibhag Shikshan Mandal, Warnanagar

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 987/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Income Tax Officer, TDS, Udaipur vs. Deputy Conservator of Forest (South), Udaipur

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 114/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they are formed under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and function as self-help groups for forest conservation and development. The payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments but are reimbursements for work done under the joint forest management policy of the State Government.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 80P

section 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961. These VFPMCs do not fall into category of State Government or Local Authority as per Section 10(20) or section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act or under any other sub-section of section 10 nor they are registered 2 as trust ... 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argues that the VFPMCs do not qualify as State Government or Local Authority under Section 10(20) or Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act, nor are they registered as trusts under Sections 11 and 12 or as cooperative societies

Income Tax Officer, TDS, Udaipur vs. Deputy Conservator of Forest South, Udaipur

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 113/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 80P

section 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961. These VFPMCs do not fall into category of State Government or Local Authority as per Section 10(20) or section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act or under any other sub-section of section 10 nor they are registered 2 as trust ... 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argues that the VFPMCs do not qualify as State Government or Local Authority under Section 10(20) or Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act, nor are they registered as trusts under Sections 11 and 12 or as cooperative societies

Mumbai Apmc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exem, Circle 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5185/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Harani (Hybrid)For Respondent: 25.02.2025
Section 10Section 11Section 11(7)Section 12A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

ITA 22/LKW/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

assessee was not incidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further commented that the exemption enjoyed under section 10(20) was a benefit conferred by the statute rather than a recognition of an element of charity in its activities. However, the consequent amendment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

ITA 21/LKW/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

assessee was not incidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further commented that the exemption enjoyed under section 10(20) was a benefit conferred by the statute rather than a recognition of an element of charity in its activities. However, the consequent amendment

U.P Housing & Development Board, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

ITA 535/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel & Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12A

assessee was not incidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further commented that the exemption enjoyed under section 10(20) was a benefit conferred by the statute rather than a recognition of an element of charity in its activities. However, the consequent amendment

U.P Housing & Development Board, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow

ITA 534/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel &
Section 11Section 12A

assessee was not incidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further commented that the exemption enjoyed under section 10(20) was a benefit conferred by the statute rather than a recognition of an element of charity in its activities. However, the consequent amendment

Income Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow vs. U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

ITA 533/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

assessee was not incidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further commented that the exemption enjoyed under section 10(20) was a benefit conferred by the statute rather than a recognition of an element of charity in its activities. However, the consequent amendment

Income Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow vs. U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

ITA 532/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

assessee was not incidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further commented that the exemption enjoyed under section 10(20) was a benefit conferred by the statute rather than a recognition of an element of charity in its activities. However, the consequent amendment

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

land for the purposes of development under the said act. It was further submitted that the assessee was considered, a. ‘Local Authority’ under section 10(20) of the Act and its income was exempt from taxation under the Income Tax Act up to the assessment year ... 10(20A) of the Act w.e.f. 1.04.2003, the explanation, ‘local authority’ was defined to include only the authorities enumerated in the explanation to section 10(20) i.e. Panchayat, Municipal Committee, District Board and Cantonment Board. Authorities constituted under any other law for the purpose of dealing with and satisfying

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

land for the purposes of development under the said act. It was further submitted that the assessee was considered, a. ‘Local Authority’ under section 10(20) of the Act and its income was exempt from taxation under the Income Tax Act up to the assessment year ... 10(20A) of the Act w.e.f. 1.04.2003, the explanation, ‘local authority’ was defined to include only the authorities enumerated in the explanation to section 10(20) i.e. Panchayat, Municipal Committee, District Board and Cantonment Board. Authorities constituted under any other law for the purpose of dealing with and satisfying

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

land for the purposes of development under the said act. It was further submitted that the assessee was considered, a. ‘Local Authority’ under section 10(20) of the Act and its income was exempt from taxation under the Income Tax Act up to the assessment year ... 10(20A) of the Act w.e.f. 1.04.2003, the explanation, ‘local authority’ was defined to include only the authorities enumerated in the explanation to section 10(20) i.e. Panchayat, Municipal Committee, District Board and Cantonment Board. Authorities constituted under any other law for the purpose of dealing with and satisfying

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

10(20A) of the Act w.e.f. 1.04.2003, the explanation, ‘local authority’ was defined to include only the authorities enumerated in the explanation to section 10(20) i.e. Panchayat, Municipal Committee, District Board and Cantonment Board. Authorities constituted under any other law for the purpose of dealing with and satisfying