C/TAXAP/760/2019 ORDER IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 760 of 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) Versus JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for Appellant(s) No. 1 for Opponent(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN Date : 10/12/2019 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. By this appeal under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), appellant has challenged order dated 22.04.2009 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot, Bench 'Rajkot' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 102/Rjt/2016 by proposing following questions stated to be substantial questions of law: (A) Whether Appellate Tribunal, on facts and circumstances of case and in law, was justified in holding that activities of assessee are not in nature of commerce/trade u/s. 11 & 12 of Act without considering fact that assessee is involved in widespread commercial activities which is covered under Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 12 11:40:27 IST 2019 C/TAXAP/760/2019 ORDER first and second provisos to section 2(15) of Act? (B) Whether Appellate Tribunal, on facts and circumstances of case and in law, was justified in allowing benefit of exemptions u/s. 11(1)(a) of Act of Rs.89,67,794/- without appreciating fact that assessee is covered by provisions of section 2(15) rws 13(8) of Act? (C) Whether Appellate Tribunal, on facts and circumstances of case and in law, was justified in allowing benefit of exemptions u/s. 11(2) of Act of Rs.2,65,76,340/- without appreciating fact that assessee is covered by provisions of section 2(15) rws 13(8) of Act? (D) Whether Appellate Tribunal, on facts and circumstances of case and in law, was justified in allowing benefit of exemptions u/s. 11 of Act on Rs.4,16,12,646/- being receipts towards development fund (Rs.38,95,060/-) public contribution (Rs.15,68,250/-) service & amenities fees (Rs.3,63,05,396/-) and advance for solid waste management projects (Rs.3,07,250/-) without appreciating fact that assessee is covered by provisions of section 2(15) rws 13(8) of Act? 2. assessment year is 2012-13 and corresponding accounting period is previous year, 2011-12. Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 12 11:40:27 IST 2019 C/TAXAP/760/2019 ORDER 3. Heard, Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel for appellant who has reiterated grounds set out in memorandum of appeal. 4. As can be seen from impugned order, Tribunal has merely applied decision of this court in case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), (2017) 396 ITR 323 (Guj.) to facts of present case. It is not case of appellant that Tribunal has wrongly applied decision to facts of present case. sole ground put forth is that Special Leave Petition filed by revenue against said decision is pending before Supreme Court. In aforesaid premises, it is not necessary to set out facts and contentions in detail. 5. For reasons recorded in decision of this court in case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (supra), this court does not find any infirmity in impugned order passed by Tribunal so as to give rise to any question of law, much less, substantial question of law, warranting interference. appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, summarily dismissed. [ Harsha Devani, J. ] [ Sangeeta K. Vishen, J. ] hiren Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 12 11:40:27 IST 2019 Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Jamnagar Area Development Authority