← All Phrases

“Section 10(46)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(46)138 judgments

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALLARI vs. BELLARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BALLARI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1523/BANG/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026
Section 10(46)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n'A' BENCH : BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

ITA 936/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)

comply with the quantified limit (as amended from time-to-time) in the proviso to section 2(15). B.3 In clause (b) of section 10(46) “commercial” has the same meaning as “trade, commerce, business” in section 2(15). Therefore, sums charged by such notified body, authority, Board, Trust ... falls within the mischief of “commercial activity”. However, in the case of such notified bodies, there is no quantified limit in section 10(46). Therefore, the Central Government would have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether and to what extent, exemption can be awarded to bodies that

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

ITA 513/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No :Aaajk0398K\Nappellant\Nrespondent\N\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N: 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide\Ndin & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For\Nthe Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With\Ndin & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For\Nthe Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals\Nare Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together And\Ndisposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025\Nfor The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee\Nhas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N1.

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

amended from time to time) in the\nproviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act.\n\nB.3 In clause (b) of Section 10(46) of the IT Act,\n“commercial” has the same meaning as “trade, commerce,\nbusiness" in Section 2(15) of the IT Act. Therefore, sums\ncharged ... falls within the mischief\nof “commercial activity”. However, in the case of such notified\nbodies, there is no quantified limit in Section 10(46). Therefore,\nthe Central Government would have to decide on a case-by-case\nbasis whether and to what extent, exemption can be awarded to\nbodies that

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

ITA 512/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No:Aaajk0398K\N\Nappellant Respondent\N\Nappellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing : 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For The Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N\N1.

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

amended from time to time) in the proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act.\n\nB.3 In clause (b) of Section 10(46) of the IT Act, “commercial” has the same meaning as “trade, commerce, business\" in Section 2(15) of the IT Act. Therefore, sums charged ... falls within the mischief of “commercial activity”. However, in the case of such notified bodies, there is no quantified limit in Section 10(46). Therefore, the Central Government would have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether and to what extent, exemption can be awarded to bodies that

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

appeal 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by ignoring the fact that the provisions of Section 10(46) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are applicable to the case of the assessee for A.Y 2014-15 and onwards and not applicable

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

appeal 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by ignoring the fact that the provisions of Section 10(46) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are applicable to the case of the assessee for A.Y 2014-15 and onwards and not applicable

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

appeal 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by ignoring the fact that the provisions of Section 10(46) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are applicable to the case of the assessee for A.Y 2014-15 and onwards and not applicable

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 339/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

statutory body engaged in\ncharitable activities, and its registration under Section 12AA is in\nconformity with the law.\n3. Grant of Exemption Under Section 10(46)\n3. 1. The exemption under Section 10(46) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was\ninserted by the Finance Bill, 2011 with effect from ... charitable trusts” in the strict legal sense, but rather\nstatutory authorities functioning under mandate of law.\n3. 2. Therefore, the introduction of Section 10(46) was done to recognize such\nstatutory entities as a distinct class and to exempt their income of specified\nnature, provided:\n•\nThey are established

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

body engaged in\ncharitable activities, and its registration under Section 12AA is in\nconformity with the law.\n\n3. Grant of Exemption Under Section 10(46)\n\n3. 1. The exemption under Section 10(46) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was\ninserted by the Finance Bill, 2011 with effect ... charitable trusts” in the strict legal sense, but rather\nstatutory authorities functioning under mandate of law.\n\n3. 2. Therefore, the introduction of Section 10(46) was done to recognize such\nstatutory entities as a distinct class and to exempt their income of specified\nnature, provided:\n•\nThey are established

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 63/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

body engaged in\ncharitable activities, and its registration under Section 12AA is in\nconformity with the law.\n\n3. Grant of Exemption Under Section 10(46)\n\n3. 1. The exemption under Section 10(46) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was\ninserted by the Finance Bill, 2011 with effect ... charitable trusts” in the strict legal sense, but rather\nstatutory authorities functioning under mandate of law.\n\n3. 2. Therefore, the introduction of Section 10(46) was done to recognize such\nstatutory entities as a distinct class and to exempt their income of specified\nnature, provided:\n\n•\nThey

ODISHA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 308/CTK/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 10(46)Section 143(1)Section 263Section 288(2)

audit report u/s.10(46) of the Act, the exemption should not be granted to the assessee. It was 2 submission the provision of section 10(46) of the Act did not require any audit report to be filed. It was submission that the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act having ... Ld.CIT(Exemption) passed u/s.263 of the Act be upheld. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of provisions of section 10(46) of the Act clearly shows that there is no mention of filing of an audit report. This being so, it cannot be said that the intimation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE,PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY & HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 10Section 10(46)Section 143(1)

without admitting appellant was not eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv), Ld. CPC Bengaluru has erred in denying the exemption under section 10(46) of the Act whereby the entire income earned by the Appellant board was exempt 6 CO No.19/PUN/2025 and therefore, the impugned addition of Rs.5

INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS 2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE CHEMBUR GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 491/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

quantified limit of the overall receipts, which is permissible from such commercial activity In the case of local authorities and corporations covered by Section 10(46) no such activities are seemingly permitted. . . . . . IV. Summation of conclusions 253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded

INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS 2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE CHEMBUR GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 48/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

quantified limit of the overall receipts, which is permissible from such commercial activity In the case of local authorities and corporations covered by Section 10(46) no such activities are seemingly permitted. . . . . . IV. Summation of conclusions 253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded

INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS 2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE CHEMBUR GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 47/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

quantified limit of the overall receipts, which is permissible from such commercial activity In the case of local authorities and corporations covered by Section 10(46) no such activities are seemingly permitted. . . . . . IV. Summation of conclusions 253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded

INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS 2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE CHEMBUR GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 46/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

quantified limit of the overall receipts, which is permissible from such commercial activity In the case of local authorities and corporations covered by Section 10(46) no such activities are seemingly permitted. . . . . . IV. Summation of conclusions 253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded

UNIT IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHARATPUR,BHARATPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR, 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

factor supporting this inference of the assessee being an instrumentality or agency of the Government. 24. We have gone through the provisions of section 10(46) and 10(46A) of the Act, reproduced as under: (46) any specified income arising to a body or authority or Board or Trust

UNIT IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHARATPUR,BHARATPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR, 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

factor supporting this inference of the assessee being an instrumentality or agency of the Government. 24. We have gone through the provisions of section 10(46) and 10(46A) of the Act, reproduced as under: (46) any specified income arising to a body or authority or Board or Trust

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ODIA SAMAJ, NEW DELHI

In the result Cross objections raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 5638/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 194CSection 194JSection 2(15)Section 80G

clause (ii) to the proviso. [Para 153] It was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in clause (b) of Section 10(46) of the IT Act, "Commercial" has the same meaning as "trade, commerce, business" in Section 2(15) of the IT Act. Therefore, sums charged ... whether it is at cost with a nominal markup or significantly higher, to determine such notified bodies, there is no quantified limit in Section 10(46). Therefore, the Central Government would have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether and to what extent, exemption can be awarded

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

statutory body engaged in\ncharitable activities, and its registration under Section 12AA is in\nconformity with the law.\n3. Grant of Exemption Under Section 10(46)\n3. 1. The exemption under Section 10(46) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was\ninserted by the Finance Bill, 2011 with effect from ... charitable trusts” in the strict legal sense, but rather\nstatutory authorities functioning under mandate of law.\n3. 2. Therefore, the introduction of Section 10(46) was done to recognize such\nstatutory entities as a distinct class and to exempt their income of specified\nnature, provided:\n•\n•\n•\n•\nThey

Showing 1–20 of 138 · Page 1 of 7