899 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX A (EXEMPTIONS) v. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

A G. Private Trusts So far as the appeal by assessee-Tribune Trustis concerned, it has been held that despite advancing general public utility, the Trust cannot benefit from exemption offered to entities covered by Section 2(15) as the records reveal that income received from advertisements, constituted B business or commercial receipts. Consequently, the limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2(15) has to be adhered to for the Trust’s claim of being as a charity eligible for exemption, to succeed. Therefore, despite differing reasoning, this court has held that the impugned judgment of the High Court does not call for interference. H. Application of interpretation C H. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that the conclusions arrived at by way of this judgment, neither precludes any of the assessees (whether statutory, or non-statutory) advancing objects of general public utility, from claiming exemption, nor the taxing authorities from denying exemption, in the future, if the receipts of the relevant year exceed the quantitative limit. The assessing authorities must on a yearly basis, scrutinize the record to discern whether the nature of the assessee’s activities amount to “trade, commerce or business” based on its receipts and income (i.e., whether the amounts charged are on cost-basis, or significantly higher). If it is found that they are in the nature of “trade, commerce or business”, then it must be examined whether the quantified limit (as amended from time to time) in proviso to Section 2(15), has been breached, thus disentitling them to exemption.

254Copy pinpoint254. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, and summary of conclusions, the numerous appeals are disposed of as follows: F (i) The revenue’s appeals against the Improvement Trust, Moga158, the Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust159, Bathinda Improvement Trust 160, Fazilka Improvement Trust161, Sangrur Improvement Trust 162; Patiala Improvement Trust 163, Jalandhar Improvement Trust 164, Kapurthala

G 158 CA Nos. 9974/2018 and 10371/2017 159 CA Nos. 12058/2017 and 9886/2018 160 CA Nos. 16375/2017, 2047/2019and Diary No. 5683/2019 161 CA No. 10598/2018 162 CA No. 17527/2017 163 CA Nos. 9860/2018, 8321/2018, 2335/2019, 4449/2019 and 4957/2019 164 H CA Nos. 12869/2017 and 10406/2018

ASST. COMM’R OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) v. AHMEDABAD 1063 URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

Improvement Trust165, Pathankot Improvement Trust166, A Improvement Trust, Hansi 167, and the Special Leave Petitions filed against the Gujarat Maritime Board168 and Karnataka Water Supply and Drainage Board 169 are rejected. (ii) The revenue’s appeals against Ahmedabad Urban B Development Authority170, the Gujarat Housing Board171, the Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority172, Rajkot Urban Development Authority 173 , Surat Urban Development Authority174, Jamnagar Area Development Authority175, and the Gujarat Industrial Development C Corporation176 are rejected. Likewise, the revenue’s appeals against Agra Development Trust177; UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad178; Raebareli Development Authority179, Rajasthan Housing Board 180 ; Mangalore Urban Development Authority181; Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority182; Meerut Development Authority183; Belgaum Development D Authority184; Moradabad Urban Development Authority185, 165 CA No. 11259/2018 166 D. No. 44856/2018 167 CA No. 9200/2018 168 SLP(C) Nos. 3759/2021, 4612/2021, 5167/2021, 4678/2021, 4636/2021, 4723/ 2021, 7854/2021and 11683/2021 E 169 SLP (C) Nos. 8364/2021. 170 CA Nos.21762/2017, 5719/2018, 6762/2018, 3343/2018, 3359/2018, 1643/2019, 3971/2019, SLP (C) 6686/2021, and SLP (C) No. 6580/2021 171 CA No. 6553/2019 and 783/2020 172 SLP (C) No. 5709/2021, 6005/2021 and 10490/2021 173 SLP (C) No. 7003/2021; 7166/2021; 6917/2021; 7510/2021; 7290/2021 and 7606/ F 2021 174 SLP (C) No. 10908/2021; 7789/2021 and 11072/2021 175 SLP (C) No. 7302/2021 and 7011/2021 176 D. Nos.39525/2017, 15525/2019, 21237-2019; 15488/2019; 15489/2019 and 21237/2019; CA Nos. 3971-3972/2018, 170/2019; SLP (C) No. 15055/2019 177 C.A No. 10114/2018 178 SLP(C) No. 12304/2018 G 179 C.A. No. 6489/2018 180 SLP(C) No. 10912/2018 181 C.A No. 9172/2018 182 C.A No. 11884/2018 183 C.A No. 226/2019 184 C.A. No. 213/2020 185 SLP(C) No. 7779/2018 H

p. 1064 Copy page pinpoint

A Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority186; Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority187; New Okhla Industrial Development Authority188 and Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board189 are rejected. (iii) The revenue’s appeals190 against ICAI are dismissed and for the same reasons, the appeals191 filed by the ICAI are hereby allowed. (iv) The revenue’s appeal - C.A. No. 21845/2017, against Rajasthan State Seed and Organic Production Certification Agency is rejected, whereas SLP (C) No. 15547/2013 filed by Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency is allowed for the same reasons. (v) The revenue’s appeal against APEC succeeds in part. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside; the matter is remitted for the concerned years, to the Assessing Officer. D SLP (C) No. 14995/2019 is allowed, in the above terms. (vi) In relation to the non-statutory bodies - the revenue’s appeal against ERNET fails, and SLP (C) No. 15040/2019 is hereby dismissed; and similarly the impugned judgment in relation to NIXI is confirmed – SLP(C) No. 15079/2019 is therefore dismissed. However, the revenue’s appeals against GS1 – C.A. No. 5058/2014 and C.A. No. 4374/2015, are hereby allowed and the impugned judgments are set aside, for the reasons elaborated in the body of the judgment. (vii) The revenue’s appeals against the cricket associations before this court succeed in part, and the impugned judgments of the Gujarat High Court and Rajasthan High Court are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the concerned authorities for determination of the question afresh in the light of the above discussion and observations. D. No. 16597/2020, C.A No. 7643/2018, C.A No. 8554/2018, D. No. 17255-2020, G 186 SLP(C) No. 14574/2019 187 C.A No. 3596/2018 188 CA No. 3347/2018 189 CA Nos. 4430/2021, 2477/2021, 2478/2021 190 CA Nos. 8193/2012, 5057/2012 and 4196/2015 191 H SLP (C) No. 23975/2012; and CA No. 5056/2012

ASST. COMM’R OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) v. AHMEDABAD 1065 URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

SLP (C) No. 1404/2021, D. No. 19394-2020, D. No. 19399- A 2020, D. No. 19403-2020, SLP (C) No. 11486/2020, SLP (C) No. 11124/2020, D. No. 19449-2020, SLP (C) No. 12206/2020, D. No. 20986-2020, D. No.23310-2020, SLP (C) No. 6253/2021, SLP(C) No. 19044/2021, D. No. 5806/ 2021, D. No. 6662/2021 are hereby allowed. B (viii) In relation to the private trusts, the appeal filed bythe assesseee, Tribune Trust - CA 9380/2017 isdismissed. The revenue’s appeal – SLP (C) No. 30597/2018, against Shri Balaji Samaj Vikas Samiti is dismissed, on account of low tax effect. C

255Copy pinpoint255. This batch of matters is disposed of, in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are dismissed.

Nidhi Jain Appeals disposed of. (Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA) D