[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority on 5 May, 2026
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/73/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 73 of 2021
==========================================================
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
Versus
AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AMAN MIR(10881) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 05/05/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. At the outset, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Aman Mir has
submitted that the Tax Appeal No.74 of 2021, in which similar
substantial questions of law were proposed, has been dismissed by the
coordinate Bench by order dated 11.09.2023.
2. Learned advocate Mr. B.S.Soparkar appears for respondent, who
had also appeared in the Tax Appeal No.74 of 2021, which has been
dismissed by the coordinate Bench vide order dated 11.09.2023.
3. Registry shall accept his appearance-note as and when filed on
behalf of the respondent.
4. In the present Tax Appeal, following substantial questions of law
are proposed:-
"[A] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in
law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/73/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
assessee is eligible to claim exemptions u/s.11 and 12 of the Act as
the provisos to section 2(15) are not applicable to the assessee
without appreciating the fact that the assessee is involved in
widespread commercial activities in nature of business and the
activity of the assessee is covered under proviso to section 2(15)
of the Act?
[B] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and
in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in upholding the order
of CIT(A) thereby allowing the benefit of exemptions u/s.11
without considering the fact that the assessee is covered by the
first and second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act?
[C] Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in
law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in allowing benefit of
section 11 of the Act relying on the decisions of this Hon'ble Court
in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs
ACIT (Exemption) in TA No. 423 to 425 of 2016 and CIT Vs
Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2017)
83 taxmann.com 366 (Gujarat) which are subject matter of
further appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court?
[D] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case
and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in allowing the
claim of the assessee for carry forward of capital expenditure,
ignoring the fact that there is no express provisions in the
Income Tax Act, 1961 allowing such claim, and without
appreciating the fact that this would have the effect of granting
double benefit to the assessee, first as accumulation of income
u/s.11(1)(a) or Corpus donation u/s.11(1) (d) in earlier/current
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/73/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
year, or exempt income u/s.10(34), and then as application of
income u/s.11(1)(a) in subsequent years which is legally not
permissible?
[E] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in
law, the Hon.ITAT is justified in allowing benefit of exemption
u/s.11 & 12 of the Act without appreciating that in quantum
appeal the decision of the Hon.High Court in T.A. 301 of 2018
which has not been accepted and further SLP has been preferred
before the Hon.Supreme Court, which is pending?"
5. We find that similar proposed questions of law have already been
dealt with by the coordinate Bench in Tax Appeal No.74 of 2021, which
has been dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2023 and as the present Tax
Appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 11.09.2023, no
substantial question of law arises to be determined by this Court.
6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Lalji Desai /SB-I / 2
