https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461540 A statutory urban development authority engaged in planned housing and town development was treated as pursuing an object of general public utility, with regulated pricing, allotment and fund control supporting section 11 exemption and no established breach of section 13(1)(c). Receipts credited to the infrastructure development and reserve fund were held to belong to the authority, though their tax treatment required examination of corresponding expenditure application, while the tourism development grant was treated as a capital receipt for specified projects and not income. Prior period expenses were allowed as application of income on a cash basis, and depreciation was allowed only to the extent it did not duplicate cost already granted as application, with limited verification directed on remaining points. en-us Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Apr 2025 18:56:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461540 A statutory urban development authority engaged in planned housing and town development was treated as pursuing an object of general public utility, with regulated pricing, allotment and fund control supporting section 11 exemption and no established breach of section 13(1)(c). Receipts credited to the infrastructure development and reserve fund were held to belong to the authority, though their tax treatment required examination of corresponding expenditure application, while the tourism development grant was treated as a capital receipt for specified projects and not income. Prior period expenses were allowed as application of income on a cash basis, and depreciation was allowed only to the extent it did not duplicate cost already granted as application, with limited verification directed on remaining points. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461540