TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by holding that assessee-authority is a charitable organization and not hit by proviso to section 2(15). We are of the considered view the assessee-authority is carrying out charitable activities with object of general public utility in accordance with section 2(15) of the Act and the same cannot be termed as commercial or of business nature for the purpose of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) allowing benefit of application and exemption u/s 11 of the Act. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 6796/Del/2017 ITA No. 5320/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2021 - SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being income transferred to Infrastructure Development Fund was upheld. The department is now in appeal before us against the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and identical grounds have been raised in both the years under appeal as under: ITA No. 6796/Del/17: 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in deleting addition upto ₹ 7,70,82,351/- made by the AO. 2. The order of Ld. CI T(A) be cancelled and the order of the AO be restored. ITA No.5320/Del/17: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in Law and on facts of the case in appreciating the fact that the AO denial to the exemption cannot be upheld, since the department is in appeal before Hon ble Supreme Court on the same plea in the case of Jhansi Development Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e orders were placed on record. It was accordingly submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly allowed the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 4.0 We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the facts of the case. The surviving issue before us is regarding nature of activities carried out by the assessee-authority in terms of section 2(15) and validity of claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer has rejected the claim of exemption u/s 11 on the ground that the assessee failed to justify that its activities fell within the definition of charitable purpose u/s 2(15) of the Act. The assessing officer was of the opinion that assessee is primarily engaged in the activity of development a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Authority vs. CIT (2006) 103 TTJ (Chd) 988 and Jalandhar Development Authority vs CIT (2009) 124 TTJ (Asr) 598. It is further seen that the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Jammu Development Authority, which was later on confirmed by the Hon'ble J K High Court, followed the order in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority, as the facts in that case were identical to the case of Jalandhar Development Authority. However, in the assessee's case, the Hon'ble ITAT distinguished those cases and held that the decision in the case of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (supra) and Jalandhar Development Authority (supra) were not applicable to the assessee's case because the assessee was constituted under the Uttar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... because the CIT(Exemption) has since granted registration u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide his order dated 20.09.2016, in pursuance of the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT. 4.1 On a close perusal of the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal restoring the registration u/s 12AA, we find that this Tribunal, after examining the entire gamut of facts and objects of the assessee authority, gave a categorical finding that the assessee-authority is not carrying out any activity with any profit motive, but its predominant object is welfare of people at large. It was further held that the assessee-authority has been created with the object of general public utility which is a charitable object within the meaning of section 2(15) and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporation v. ACIT (ITA No. 278/Ahd/13)(Ahmedabad-Trib.) v. Bangalore Development Authority v. Addl. CIT [2019] 104 taxmann.com 266 (Bangalore-Trib.) vi. Gujarat Housing Board (GHB) v. DCIT(E) (ITA No. 3297/Ahd/2016)(Ahmedabad-Trib.) vii. Moradabad Development Authority v. ACIT (Exemption) (ITA No. 4631 32/D/17) (Delhi-Trib) viii. Firozabad Shikohabad Development Authority v. CIT [2018] 169 ITD 202 (Agra - Trib.) ix. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. ACIT [2017] 396 ITR 323 (Guj High Court) x. CIT v. Jodhpur Development Authority [2016] 287 CTR 473 (Raj HC) xi. CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority [2014] 265 CTR 433 (All HC) xii. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. CIT(E) ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
