NOIDA wins exemption under Section 10(46) as development authority acts as State arm, not commercial enterprise

Delhi HC allowed NOIDA's writ petition challenging denial of exemption under Section 10(46). The court held that NOIDA, constituted under UPID Act as a development authority, acts as an arm of the State for planned industrial development rather than a commercial enterprise. The revenue authorities erroneously concluded that NOIDA's loans to entities and investments in bonds/shares constituted commercial activities undertaken for profit. The court found these activities were supportive of development objectives, not profit-motivated, noting NOIDA's financial statements showed negative margins in most years from FY 2011-12 to 2022-23. The exemption denial order was quashed and authorities directed to process NOIDA's application considering the court's observations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Refusal of exemption under Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Assessment of NOIDA's activities as commercial or non-commercial.
3. Consideration of loans and advances extended by NOIDA.
4. Comparison with similar entities granted exemption.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refusal of Exemption under Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) challenged the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) order dated 24 December 2020, which denied NOIDA certification under Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This section exempts specified income of a body or authority constituted under a Central, State, or Provincial enactment from taxation, provided it is not engaged in any commercial activity.

2. Assessment of NOIDA's Activities as Commercial or Non-Commercial:
The CBDT denied NOIDA's application, citing that NOIDA had extended loans to various entities, which was seen as a commercial activity inconsistent with the objectives of the Authority. The court reviewed the financial statements and found that the nominal margin between NOIDA's income and expenditure negated the assumption of it being a profit-making entity. The court emphasized that NOIDA's activities, such as acquiring and selling land, were intrinsic to its regulatory and administrative role under the UPID Act and were not undertaken with a profit motive.

3. Consideration of Loans and Advances Extended by NOIDA:
The court noted that the loans extended by NOIDA to other governmental entities were pursuant to directions from the Government of Uttar Pradesh, as mandated by Section 41 of the UPID Act. These loans were not motivated by profit but were part of a collaborative effort for regional development. The court found the CBDT's assumption that these loans constituted commercial activity to be unsustainable. The court also addressed the payments made to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of M/s Amarpali Silicon City, clarifying that these were statutory obligations under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and not commercial activities.

4. Comparison with Similar Entities Granted Exemption:
The court highlighted that similar entities constituted under the UPID Act, such as the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) and the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA), had been granted certification under Section 10(46). The court found no rationale for denying NOIDA the same relief, especially since NOIDA's activities and objectives were identical to those of GNIDA and YEIDA.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the CBDT's order dated 24 December 2020 and directed the respondents to process NOIDA's application for exemption under Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the observations made in the judgment. The court emphasized that NOIDA's activities were not commercial in nature and were consistent with its statutory mandate under the UPID Act.

---