← 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)

ITO(TDS), Ajmer vs. Divisionl Forest Officer, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 360/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

194C of the I.T. Act, 1961 where as these EDCs/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 any sub-section of section 10 comes to their relief nor they are registered ... compliance. The ld. AO categorically stated that the EDCs/VFPMCs does not fall into category of state government or local authority as per section 10(20) or section 10(46) of the Act or any sub-section 10 of section10 comes to the relief. The EDCs/VFPMCs are also not registered

Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer vs. Divisionl Forest Officer, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 359/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

194C of the I.T. Act, 1961 where as these EDCs/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 any sub-section of section 10 comes to their relief nor they are registered ... compliance. The ld. AO categorically stated that the EDCs/VFPMCs does not fall into category of state government or local authority as per section 10(20) or section 10(46) of the Act or any sub-section 10 of section10 comes to the relief. The EDCs/VFPMCs are also not registered

Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer vs. Divisionl Forest Officer, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 358/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

194C of the I.T. Act, 1961 where as these EDCs/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 any sub-section of section 10 comes to their relief nor they are registered ... compliance. The ld. AO categorically stated that the EDCs/VFPMCs does not fall into category of state government or local authority as per section 10(20) or section 10(46) of the Act or any sub-section 10 of section10 comes to the relief. The EDCs/VFPMCs are also not registered

ITO, Ward- 1(4), Shamli vs. Cane Development Council, Shamli

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, consequently, the cross objections become superfulous

ITA 7133/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 7133/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ito, Vs. M/S. Cane Development Ward-1(4), Council Distt. Shamli, Palika Bazar, Shiv Ganj Mandi, Shamli Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aaalc0276E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(20)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)

made addition on the basis that he was of the view that assessee is not a local authority for the purpose of Section 10(20) of the Act. AO enquired about the status of the assessee if registered u/s12AA of the Act and thereafter being dissatisfied considered the status

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhaptnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 67/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 49/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 236/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 235/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद

The Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The Asst. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 325/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 12/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद

The ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 399/VIZ/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 397/VIZ/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 396/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 26/VIZ/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The Addl. CIT., Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 25/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 138/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal & Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E)-2(1) Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board Girni Kamgar Kareeda Bhavan, Elphinston Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaaam3255A ..... Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi & Shri Ashok Patil, Ld.AR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 20Section 250Section 4

created by the Govt. of Maharashtra Being the Board in terms of MLWF Act, as well as within the meaning of the existing Section 10(20) and 10(20A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it had the blanket exemption under the Income Tax Act up to the assessment year ... Provisions of Section 10(20) & 10(20A) The Finance Act, 2002 deleted the provisions of section 10(20A) and introduced a new definition of Local Authorities u/s.10(20) wherein Panchayat,./ Municipality, Municipal Committee and District Boards and Cantonment Boards only are included u/s 10(20

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board Girni Kamgar, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 137/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal & Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E)-2(1) Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board Girni Kamgar Kareeda Bhavan, Elphinston Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaaam3255A ..... Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi & Shri Ashok Patil, Ld.AR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 20Section 250Section 4

created by the Govt. of Maharashtra Being the Board in terms of MLWF Act, as well as within the meaning of the existing Section 10(20) and 10(20A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it had the blanket exemption under the Income Tax Act up to the assessment year ... Provisions of Section 10(20) & 10(20A) The Finance Act, 2002 deleted the provisions of section 10(20A) and introduced a new definition of Local Authorities u/s.10(20) wherein Panchayat,./ Municipality, Municipal Committee and District Boards and Cantonment Boards only are included u/s 10(20

Kiran Jain, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-1, TDS, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 76/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Sept 2023AY 2015-16
Section 10(20)Section 194Section 194ISection 196Section 201Section 201(1)

Urban Improvement Trust [2018] 98 taxman.com 237 stating that the said trust is not entitled to tax exemption under the provisions of section 10(20) of the Act. Accordingly, the relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble Supreme court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference. "Sections ... where Municipal Board still exists. There is no reason to accept that Urban Improvement Trust is a Municipal Committee within the meaning of section 10(20) Explanation clause (iii). Coming back to section 105, which provides for ultimate dissolution of Trust and transfer of its assets and liabilities

Jyoti Maliwal, Bhilwara vs. ITO, TDS, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 75/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Sept 2023AY 2015-16
Section 10(20)Section 194Section 194ISection 196Section 201Section 201(1)

Urban Improvement Trust [2018] 98 taxman.com 237 stating that the said trust is not entitled to tax exemption under the provisions of section 10(20) of the Act. Accordingly, the relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble Supreme court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference. "Sections ... where Municipal Board still exists. There is no reason to accept that Urban Improvement Trust is a Municipal Committee within the meaning of section 10(20) Explanation clause (iii). Coming back to section 105, which provides for ultimate dissolution of Trust and transfer of its assets and liabilities

Bhiwadi Integrated Development Authority, Bhiwadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Alwar, Bhiwadi

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

ITA 380/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik ( CIT)
Section 10(20)

payment of income tax as per the Honourable Rajasthan High Court order in case of UIT, Kota and that it was covered under section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. 6. Since, the case of the assessee was never heard before any forum and was devoid of justice