https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752967 The ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal for exemption under section 11. The AO had denied the benefit claiming the assessee earned profits through activities like development plans, town planning schemes, and fee collection. Following the SC decision in AUDA case, the tribunal held that fees, cess, and consideration collected by statutory entities for regulatory activities cannot be treated as trade or business. The court emphasized that statutory bodies mandated to develop housing and industrial estates, even when charging differential amounts for cross-subsidization, are not engaged in commercial activities. The regulatory nature and public interest purpose of such fee collection distinguishes it from business activities. en-us Mon, 20 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 May 2024 20:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752967 The ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal for exemption under section 11. The AO had denied the benefit claiming the assessee earned profits through activities like development plans, town planning schemes, and fee collection. Following the SC decision in AUDA case, the tribunal held that fees, cess, and consideration collected by statutory entities for regulatory activities cannot be treated as trade or business. The court emphasized that statutory bodies mandated to develop housing and industrial estates, even when charging differential amounts for cross-subsidization, are not engaged in commercial activities. The regulatory nature and public interest purpose of such fee collection distinguishes it from business activities. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 20 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752967