Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions v. Surat Urban Development Authority (Suda) ==========================================================

C/TAXAP/342/2020 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 342 of 2020 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) Versus SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (SUDA) ========================================================== Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAand HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Date : 11/01/2021 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act, 1961') is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Ahmedabad dated 20[th] February 2020 in the ITA No.2433/Ahd/2017 for the A.Y. 2014-15. 2The Revenue has proposed the following questions of law for the consideration of this Court: “[A] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the activities of the assessee are not in the nature of commerce / trade without considering the fact that the assessee is involved in widespread commercial activities which is covered under first and second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act without considering the merit of the issue? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified considering the activity of the assessee as engaged in the development of urban area which is in the nature of advancement of general public utility not hit by the newly introduced first and second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act without considering the merit of the issue?” (C) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified giving benefit in accumulation @15% of Rs.9,19,94,580/- u/s. 11(1)(a) of the Act and exemption of Rs.10,32,30,356/- claimed u/s. 11(2) of the Act without appreciating the fact that once the proviso of Section 2(15) cannot be allowed further without considering the merit of the issue? (D) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.30,32,936/- by not appreciating the fact that the addition to fixed assets has already been allowed in earlier years as application of income which amounts to double deduction? (E) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of General Development Expenditure Fund of Rs.3,93,78,613/- considering that a capital expenditure by a person need not be a capital receipt of the person receiving that amount which the assessee has received for the discharge of its? (F) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in allowing deemed application of Rs.6,77,02,219/- against its future income in absence of any express provision in the Act regarding the same? (G) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in allowing the claim of exemptions without appreciating that the SLP has been filed on the issue of Section 2(15) in the case of AUDA vs. ACIT(E) against Tax Appeal No.423, 424 and 425 of 2016? (H) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in allowing the claim of exemptions relying on the decision of Coordinate Bench of Ahmedabad in ITA No.2751/Ahd/2014 which has not been accepted, though further appeal was not preferred on account of the quantum of tax involved? (G) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in allowing the claim of exemptions without appreciating that the SLP has been filed on the issue of Section 2(15) in the case of AUDA vs. ACIT(E) against Tax Appeal No.423, 424 and 425 of 2016? (H) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in allowing the claim of exemptions relying on the decision of Coordinate Bench of Ahmedabad in ITA No.2751/Ahd/2014 which has not been accepted, though further appeal was not preferred on account of the quantum of tax involved? (I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in allowing the claim of exemptions relying on the decision of Coordinate Bench of Ahmedabad in ITA No.3621/Ahd/2015 against which appeal filed before the High Court in T.A. No.79 of 2020, though further SLP was not preferred on account of the quantum of tax involved?” 3We have heard Ms. Mauna Bhatt, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. 4All the questions of law referred to above and proposed by the Revenue stand squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT reported in 396 ITR 323 (Guj). 5In view of the aforesaid, this Tax Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) CHANDRESH (ILESH J. VORA,J)