TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1672
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. As the facts in all the three appeals are similar, so, we take ITA No. 2438/Ahd/2017 assessment year 2012-13 as the lead case and its findings will also be applicable to the remaining ITA Nos. 2439 & 2440/Ahd/2017 for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- ITA No. 2438/Ahd/2017 "1. The Ld. CITCA) has erred in the law and on facts in considering the activity of the assessee as engaged in the development of urban area of Ghandhinagar which is in the nature of advancement of general public utility not hit by the newly introduced first and second proviso to sec.2(15) of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the law and on facts in allowing the benefit of exemptions u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rved that that the main objective of the assessee is contribution towards planned and controlled development for the entire urban development areas falls under the category of "advancement of any other object of general public utility. Therefore, the assessee was show caused to explain why not exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the act should not be denied and why not the proviso to section 2(15) of the act should be applied in the case of the assessee. The assessee explained that it is a authority established by the Government of Gujarat u/s. 27 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act with an object to develop Gandhinagar Urban Area in controlled and disciplined manner. The source of income of the authority was mainly grants either from Government of G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ITAT Ahmedabad has adjudicated the identical issue on similar fact in the case of the assessee itself for assessment year 2011-12 Vide ITA No. 3621/Ahd/2015 dated 23- 07-2019 in favour of the assessee, after following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat on identical issue and fact in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT 396 ITR 323 (Gujarat) and CIT Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (2017) Taxman.com 366 (Guj). On the other hand, ld. departmental representative supported the order of lower authorities and could not contradict the aforesaid submission of the ld. counsel. 6. With the assistance of ld. representatives, we have gone through the aforesaid jurisdictional pronounc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Urban Development Authority-vs-ACIT, where it was held as follows: "Held, that the object and purpose of permitting the Authority to sell the plots to a maximum extent of 15% of the total area, was to meet the expenditure for providing infrastructural facilities like gardens, roads, lighting, water supply, drainage system, etc. The reasons for selling the plots by holding public auction were; (a) to avoid any further allegation of favoritism and nepotism and (b) so that the maximum market price could be fetched, which could be used for the development of the urban development area. Considering the fact that the assessee was a statutory body, an Authority constituted under the provisions of the Act, to carry out the object and purp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purpose of establishing commercial centers in connection with establishment and organization of such industries it could not be said that activities carried out by assessee were either in nature of trade, commerce or business, for a Cess or Fee or any other consideration so as to attract proviso to section 2(15) and same could be said to be for charitable purpose and, consequently,. Assessee was entitled to exemption under section 11- Held, yes (Paras 15 and 17) [In favour of assessee]" 5. We find that the object of the assessee is similar to that of the corporation before the Jurisdictional High Court and on the similar set of facts the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee hence relying upon the same we allow the claim of ....