IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sonia Gokani, Sandeep N. Bhatt, JJ.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) – Appellant
Versus
Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation - Opponent
R/Tax Appeal No. 499 of 2022
Decided On : 03-01-2023
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 11, 12, 2(15), 13 (8) – Law raised for determination – Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Court have heard, learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for Revenue who has fairly submitted that the decision of Civil Appeal rendered by Apex Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Urban Development Authority, would govern case of assessee – In instant case, though various questions are raised essentially challenge is of giving benefit of Section 11 and 12, disallowed by Assessing Officer by invoking of provision of Section 2(15) read with Section 13 (8) of Income Tax Act, 1961 – Held, Court has clarified through illustrations what kind of services or goods provided on cost or nominal basis would normally be excluded from mischief of trade, commerce, or business, in body of judgment – Carrying out activity in nature of trade, commerce or business, or service in relation to such activities, should be conducted in course of achieving GPU object, and income, profit or surplus or gains must, therefore, be incidental – Requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with necessity of demonstrating that quantitative limit prescribed in proviso to Section 2(15), has not been breached – Appeal disposed of.
ORDER :
SONIA GOKANI, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘ITAT’), Ahmedabad passed in ITA No. 808/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15, the following are the substantial questions of law raised for determination of this Court by the Revenue.
[B] Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in giving the benefit of Section 11 and 12 which the Assessing Officer disallowed by invoking the provision of Section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the Act ?
[C] Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the issue of addition of Rs. 802,93,06,925/- made on account of premium on land and shades back to the Assessing Officer in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act in place of upholding the decision of Assessing Officer on merits?
[D] Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the issue of depreciation allowance and set-off of brought forward deficit for re-examination at the end of Assessing Officer in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act in place of upholding the decision of Assessing Officer on merits ?
[E] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the issue of disallowance of unpaid leave encashment of Rs.1,37,56,726/- to the file of Assessing Officer in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act in place of upholding the decision of Assessing Officer on merits ?
[F] Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the issue of deemed rent amounting to Rs.12,00,667/- in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act in place of upholding the decision of Assessing Officer on merits ?’
2. We have heard Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue who has fairly submitted that the decision of Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017 rendered by the Apex Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, would govern the case of assessee. In the instant case, though the various questions are raised essentially challenge is of giving benefit of Section 11 and 12, disallowed by the Assessing Officer by invoking of provision of Section 2(15) read with Section 13 (8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘ITAT’ )
3. Tribunal on the ground that the issue is covered in assessee’s own case by the order of the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal and affirmed by this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation [(2017) 80 taxman.com 366 (Guj)] has chosen to address the issue. The Assessee -Corporation was constituted under the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 for the purpose of securing and assisting rapid and orderly establishment and organization of Industrial areas and Industrial estates in the State of Gujarat and for the purpose of establishing the commercial centers in connection with establishment and organization of such industries. It is also held that it could not be said that the activities carried out by the Assessee were either in nature of trade, commerce or business, for Cess or Fee or any other consideration so as to attract the proviso to Section 2(15) and the same could be said to be for charitable purpose and consequently, the exemption under Section 11 was permitted. The Tribunal allowed the exemption under Section 11 and 12. The revenue’s appeal on this ground had not been entertained.
4. When this issue was taken up before the Apex Court by way of Civil
Statutory housing bodies advancing general public utility qualify for section 11 exemption if charges are nominal/cost-based without profit motive, despite resembling commerce; AO to verify against s....
Statutory urban development authorities' activities qualify as charitable under section 2(15) if advancing general public utility without profit motive or significant mark-up over costs, eligible for....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.