Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.48 seconds)
New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 July, 2024 cites

Shri Ramtanu Co-Operative Housing ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 5 August, 1970

In Shri Ramtanu Coop. Housing Society [Shri Ramtanu Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (1970) 3 SCC 323] no doubt, this Court did not have to decide whether Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation was entitled to tax exemption. However, it examined the provisions of the Act, and the ratio, that such industrial development corporations are not engaged in trading, is binding. Like in that case, here too, the State Acts concerned (the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 and the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966) tasked the boards with planning and development of industrial areas. Their personnel are appointed under the enactments and are deemed to be public servants. The State Government is empowered to acquire land, in exercise of eminent domain power, for their purposes; their audits are by the Accountant General of the State concerned, or auditors appointed by the State. They are authorised by law, to levy rates and charges, for the services they provide, on predetermined basis. In the light of these provisions, clearly, these boards and authorities perform objects of general public utility; and they are not driven by profit motive.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 87 - A N Ray - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs M/S. Raipur Manufacturing Company Ltd on 30 September, 1966

"Section 2(15) defines the term 'charitable purpose'. Therefore, while construing the term 'business' for the said section, the object and purpose of the section has to be kept in mind. We do not think that a very broad and extended definition of the term 'business' is intended for the purpose of interpreting and applying the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act to include any transaction for a fee or money. An activity would be considered 'business' if it is undertaken with a profit motive, but in some cases this may not be determinative. Normally, the profit motive test should be satisfied but in a given case activity may be regarded as business even when profit motive cannot be established/proved. In such cases, there should be evidence and material to show that the activity has continued on sound and recognized business principles, and pursued with reasonable continuity. There should be facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1967) 19 STC 1 (SC) and CST v. Sai Publication Fund (2002) 258 ITR 70 (SC) ; (2002) 126 STC 288 (SC) can be applied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 157 - J C Shah - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Gujarat Maritime Board on 5 December, 2007

196. The decision in Gujarat Maritime Board [CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board, (2007) 14 SCC 704 : (2007) 12 SCR 962] was rendered in the context of Section 10(20). That provision exempts income accruing to local authorities, from taxation. By the Finance Act, 2002, an Explanation was added to Section 10(20) which defined ―local authority‖ retrospectively. The Board ceased to enjoy exemption which it had hitherto, in the absence of the retrospective definition. It, therefore sought exemption, as a GPU category charity claiming that it was controlled by objects of general public utility having regard to the provisions of its parent Act i.e. the Gujarat Maritime Board Act. This Court refuted the argument of the Revenue that if a corporation did not fall within the definition of ―local authority‖ it could not claim to be a GPU charity. It was held that Section 10(20) and Section 11 of the 1961 Act operate in totally different spheres. Even if the Board is not considered as a local authority, it is not precluded from claiming exemption under Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act. Therefore, the Court read Section 11(1) in light of the definition of the words ―charitable purposes‖ as defined under Section 2(15).
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 109 - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers ... on 19 November, 1979

30. Any activity undertaken with profit motive and intent would be certainly commercial activity. Authorities/bodies set up or created by the Government with commercial purposes and objects are not entitled to exemption. This cannot be debated and challenged. Equally, reference to expansive and wider interpretative meaning attributed to the expression "charitable purpose" defined in section 2(15), vide earlier judgments including Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC) would not be apposite and constitute affirmative precedent in view of the strict mandate and contrary language of sub-clause (b) of section 10(46) of the Act. Any commercial activity undertaken with profit motive even if with the intent to feed and to be utilised in activities for the benefit of general public would result in disqualification under sub-clause
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 2322 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S Yamuna Expressway Industrial ... on 21 April, 2017

22. Now we would turn to the two decisions in the case of the petitioner itself. The first decision is by the Allahabad High Court in CIT (Exemption) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority/Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority reported in (2017) 395 ITR 18 (All). This was a case relating to registration under section 12AA read with section 2(15) of the Act. The nature of activities undertaken by the petitioner were extensively examined and considered and the contention raised by the Revenue was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4711/2021 Page 47 of 67 By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:11.07.2024 18:18:13 rejected. In other words, the petitioner was entitled to registration under section 12AA read with section 2(15) of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 5 - S Agarwal - Full Document

New Delhi Municipal Committee vs State Of Punjab Etc. Etc on 19 December, 1996

206.4.5. Does the statute or controlling instrument set out the policy or scheme, for how the goods and services are to be distributed; in what proportion the surpluses, or profits, can be permissively Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4711/2021 Page 62 of 67 By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:11.07.2024 18:18:13 garnered; are there are limits within which plots, rates or costs are to be worked out; whether the function in which the body is engaged in, is normally something a Government or State is expected to engage in, having regard to provisions of the Constitution and the enacted laws, and the observations of this Court in NDMC [NDMC v. State of Punjab, (1997) 7 SCC 339] ; whether in case surplus or gains accrue, the corporation, body or authority is permitted to distribute it, and if so, only to the Government or State; the extent to which the State or its instrumentalities have control over the corporation or its bodies, and whether it is subject to directions by the Government, etc. concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 96 - Cited by 89 - Full Document

Gujarat Industrial Develop-Ment ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 20 August, 1997

201. As far as boards and corporations which are tasked with development of industrial areas, by statute, the judgments of this Court, in Shri Ramtanu Coop. Housing Society [Shri Ramtanu Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (1970) 3 SCC 323] and Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. [Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. v. CIT, (1997) 7 SCC 17 : 1997 Supp (3) SCR 466] have declared that these bodies are involved in ―development‖ and are not essentially engaged in trading. In Shri Ramtanu Coop.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S. Greater Noida Industrial ... on 2 April, 2018

35. The Allahabad High Court in CIT (Exemption) v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (2017) 395 ITR 18 (All) after extensively referring to the statutory mandate and object for which the petitioner authority has been established and also the provisions of the Act, i.e., the Income-tax Act, had observed that the petitioner was to provide amenities and facilities in industrial estate and in industrial area in the form of road, electricity, sewage etc. We have also referred to the functions and objectives for which the petitioner is established. The said activities necessarily require money and funds, which are received from the State Government. The petitioner, given the regulatory and administrative functions performed is required and charges fee, cost and consideration in the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4711/2021 Page 51 of 67 By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:11.07.2024 18:18:13 form of rent and transfer of rights in land, building and movable properties. Similarly payments have to be made for acquisition of land, creation and construction of infrastructure and even buildings. Carrying out and rendering the said activities is directly connected with the role and statutory mandate assigned to the petitioner. It has not been asserted and alleged that these activities were or are undertaken on commercial lines and intent. The petitioner does not earn profits or income from any other activity unconnected with their regulatory and administrative role. Income in the form of taxes, fee, service charges, rents and sale proceeds is intrinsically, immediately and fundamentally connected and forms part of the role, functions and duties of the petitioner.‖
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next