Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur vs Union Of India And Anr ... on 21 April, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2023/RJJD/011401]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1004/2016
Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, Saheli Road, Udaiput
through its Officer-in-Charge, Shyam Swarup Gupta s/o Late
Shri Madan Lal Gupta, aged about 57 years, presently working
as Assistant Accounts Officer, Urban Improvement Trust,
Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi
through its Chariman
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Dave
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Order
21/04/2023
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
of the order dated 08.06.2015 (Annex. 33) whereby, the
application filed by the petitioner for being notified under Section
10(46) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been rejected by the
Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the
foundational reason for rejection of the application by the CBDT
was that as the petitioner was engaged in a commercial activity
and the basic requirement of Sub-clause (b) of Clause 46
provisions of Section 10 was that the entity should not be engaged
in any commercial activity.
3. It is submitted that the said aspect of the matter has now
been put to rest by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs.
Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority in Civil Appeal
[2023/RJJD/011401] (2 of 2) [CW-1004/2016]
No.21762/2017 and other connected matters decided on
19.10.2022 and that the matter now has to be dealt with as per
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad
Urban Development Authority (supra) and, therefore, the matter
be remanded back to the CBDT.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not
dispute the fact that the issue raised in the present writ petition
now stands squarely covered by judgment in the case of
Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). However, it is
submitted that the issue will have to be examined by the authority
in each individual case.
5. In view of the above fact situation, wherein the issue raised
in the present petition, pertaining to the eligibility of the petitioner
to seek exemption under the provisions of Section 10(46) of the
Act now stands concluded by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra)
and the subject matter now needs to be examined by the CBDT in
the light of the said judgment, the order impugned dated
08.06.2015 (Annex.33) is set aside and the matter is remanded
back to the CBDT to redetermine the aspect of eligibility of the
petitioner in seeking exemption under Section 10(46) of the Act in
the light of the above judgment.
6. It is expected of the CBDT to decide the matter expeditiously
preferably within a period of three months.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
23-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
