2019 (11) TMI 1672 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 11 - Charitable object u/s 2(15) - denial of exemption as assessee is involved in widespread commercial activities in nature of business - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2019 (7) TMI 1608 - ITAT AHMEDABAD following the decision of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT 2017 (5) TMI 1468 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and CIT Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation 2017 (7) TMI 811 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT wherein the claim of the assessee has been allowed. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals filed by assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 to 2014-15 challenging order of CIT(A)-9, Ahmedabad dated 16-08-2017 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:

1. Nature of Assessee's Activity:
The assessee's main objective was the development of urban areas, particularly Gandhinagar, for the benefit of the public. The assessing officer contended that the activities, such as providing infrastructural facilities and collecting fees, fell under the category of "advancement of general public utility." This led to a denial of exemptions under sections 11 and 12 of the Act.

2. Assessee's Arguments and CIT(A) Decision:
The assessee argued that it was a government-established authority working for planned urban development, primarily funded by grants and levies. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, emphasizing the public utility aspect of the activities undertaken by the assessee.

3. Appellate Tribunal's Analysis:
During the appellate proceedings, the assessee cited previous decisions by the ITAT and the Gujarat High Court in similar cases, where exemptions were granted based on the nature of the activities. The Tribunal noted that the object and purpose of the assessee's activities aligned with those considered charitable and for public benefit in previous judgments.

4. Decision and Rationale:
Relying on the precedents and the nature of the assessee's work, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the exemptions claimed by the assessee under section 11 of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the activities were not commercial in nature, did not involve profiteering, and were primarily aimed at providing public utility services. Therefore, the revenue's appeals were dismissed based on the established legal principles and precedents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the nature of the assessee's activities, aligning with charitable purposes and public utility services, as established in previous legal judgments. The exemptions claimed under sections 11 and 12 were allowed, considering the non-commercial and public welfare aspects of the assessee's work.