Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 898 (RAJ)

Urban Improvement Trust v. Union of India

2023-04-21

ARUN BHANSALI, RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

body2023
ORDER : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 08.06.2015 (Annex. 33) whereby, the application filed by the petitioner for being notified under Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been rejected by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the foundational reason for rejection of the application by the CBDT was that as the petitioner was engaged in a commercial activity and the basic requirement of Sub-clause (b) of Clause 46 provisions of Section 10 was that the entity should not be engaged in any commercial activity. 3. It is submitted that the said aspect of the matter has now been put to rest by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority in Civil Appeal No.21762/2017 and other connected matters decided on 19.10.2022 and that the matter now has to be dealt with as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (supra) and, therefore, the matter be remanded back to the CBDT. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the issue raised in the present writ petition now stands squarely covered by judgement in the case of Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (supra). However, it is submitted that the issue will have to be examined by the authority in each individual case. 5. In view of the above fact situation, wherein the issue raised in the present petition, pertaining to the eligibility of the petitioner to seek exemption under the provisions of Section 10(46) of the Act now stands concluded by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (supra) and the subject matter now needs to be examined by the CBDT in the light of the said judgement, the order impugned dated 08.06.2015 (Annex.33) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the CBDT to redetermine the aspect of eligibility of the petitioner in seeking exemption under Section 10(46) of the Act in the light of the above judgement. 6. It is expected of the CBDT to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three months.