TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act as it does not possess the nature and characteristics of a municipal committee, district board or a body of port commissioners - held that as the applicant-corporation is not "local authority" within the meaning of section 10(20) of the Act the income earned by it from house property, capital gains, etc., is not exempted. - - - - - Dated:- 17-8-2006 - Judge(s) : R. K. AGRAWAL., VIKRAM NATH. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by R.K. Agrawal J.- The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e corporation had been formed for the advancement of an object of general public utility not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit. However, the Income-tax Officer did not accept the submission and completed the assessment as aforesaid. The assessee, being aggrieved, went up in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Relying upon the consolidated order dated September 17, 1980, of the Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 1254/Alld./78-79 and 34 and 35/Alld/1979 for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. He held that the assessee-corporation could not be treated as a local authority within the meaning of section 10(20) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal filed for the assessment year 1976-77 was dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference need not detain us any longer in view of the decision of the apex court in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 515, wherein the apex court has held that the Calcutta State Transport Corporation, even if it is treated as an "authority" within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India it is not a "local authority" under section 10(20) of the Act as it does not possess the nature and characteristics of a municipal committee, district board or a body of port commissioners. The aforesaid view has again been reiterated by the apex court in the case of CIT v. U.P. Forest Corporation [1998] 230 ITR 945; AIR 1998 SC 1125. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we are of the conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
