https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424935 A statutory development authority engaged in planned urban development, infrastructure creation and public amenities was examined for exemption under section 11 and the scope of the proviso to section 2(15). Its receipts from sale or allotment of properties, charges, interest and other recoveries were treated as incidental to its statutory function because funds were restricted, surplus had to be applied to development, and State control remained pervasive. The analysis distinguishes such public-purpose activity from commercial real estate operations and states that generation of surplus alone does not establish a profit motive. It concludes that the proviso to section 2(15) does not apply where the dominant object remains advancement of an object of general public utility. en-us Wed, 06 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424935 A statutory development authority engaged in planned urban development, infrastructure creation and public amenities was examined for exemption under section 11 and the scope of the proviso to section 2(15). Its receipts from sale or allotment of properties, charges, interest and other recoveries were treated as incidental to its statutory function because funds were restricted, surplus had to be applied to development, and State control remained pervasive. The analysis distinguishes such public-purpose activity from commercial real estate operations and states that generation of surplus alone does not establish a profit motive. It concludes that the proviso to section 2(15) does not apply where the dominant object remains advancement of an object of general public utility. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424935