ACIT (Exemptions) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemptions) Vs Ahmedabad Urban Development authority(Supreme Court) Date-3rd November,2022 The Supreme Court today was hearing a miscellaneous application which was filed by the department seeking clarification in relation to the judgement of the Supreme Court which was pronounced on 19th October, 2022 (original judgement)regarding interpretation of Section 2(15) of Income-tax Act,1961. As the original judgement was related to a bunch of appeals, in paragraph 254 of the original judgement, the Ld Judges had pronounced final judgements in various sub paragraphs wherein some of…
Result: Disposed. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 2(15) of Income-tax Act; 1961
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemptions) Vs Ahmedabad Urban Development authority(Supreme Court) Date-3rd November,2022 The Supreme Court today was hearing a miscellaneous application which was filed by the department seeking clarification in relation to the judgement of the Supreme Court which was pronounced on 19th October, 2022 (original judgement)regarding interpretation of Section 2(15) of Income-tax Act,1961. As the original judgement was related to a bunch of appeals, in paragraph 254 of the original judgement, the Ld Judges had pronounced final judgements in various sub paragraphs wherein some of…
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) ...APPELLANT(S)
Appellant / assessee submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the appellant's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Revenue / respondent submissions
3. It was urged on behalf of the revenue, that the clarification it seeks is
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
The reasoning is integrated into the packaged record. Read it with the facts, statutory text and operative directions; this editorial article does not invent missing reasons.
Operative decision and relief
trusts; the appeals were dismissed. These conclusions are accurately reflected in
6. The application M.A. No. 1849 of 2022 is disposed of in the above terms.
Source and subsequent history
Primary record: Official primary source verified and packaged
Later-history status: Clarification order captured; further review / curative check pending
This record is the Supreme Court's clarification order dated 3 November 2022 in M.A. No. 1849 of 2022 in C.A. No. 21762 of 2017. It clarifies the principal judgment dated 19 October 2022; it is not the principal judgment itself.
Evidence links: Source 1
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemptions) Vs Ahmedabad Urban Development authority(Supreme Court) Date-3rd November,2022 The Supreme Court today was hearing a miscellaneous application which was filed by the department seeking clarification in relation to the judgement of the Supreme Court which was pronounced on 19th October, 2022 (original judgement)regarding interpretation of Section 2(15) of Income-tax Act,1961. As the original judgement was related to a bunch of appeals, in paragraph 254 of the original judgement, the Ld Judges had pronounced final judgements in various sub paragraphs wherein some of…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with assistant commissioner of income-tax(exemptions) vs ahmedabad urban development authority(supreme court) date-3rd november,2022 the supreme court today was hearing a miscellaneous application which was filed by the department seeking clarification in relation to the judgement of the supreme court which was pronounced on 19th october, 2022 (original judgement)regarding interpretation of section 2(15) of income-tax act,1961. as the original judgement was related to a bunch of appeals, in paragraph 254 of the original judgement, the ld judges had pronounced final judgements in various sub paragraphs wherein some of… Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized mirror generated from the verified official Supreme Court PDF |
| Repository release | Published |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in ACIT (Exemptions) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority?
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemptions) Vs Ahmedabad Urban Development authority(Supreme Court) Date-3rd November,2022 The Supreme Court today was hearing a miscellaneous application which was filed by the department seeking clarification in relation to the judgement of the Supreme Court which was pronounced on 19th October, 2022 (original judgement)regarding interpretation of Section 2(15) of Income-tax Act,1961. As the original judgement was related to a bunch of appeals, in paragraph 254 of the original judgement, the Ld Judges had pronounced final judgements in various sub paragraphs wherein some of…
Which facts matter most?
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) ...APPELLANT(S)
What did the Supreme Court decide?
6. The application M.A. No. 1849 of 2022 is disposed of in the above terms.
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemptions) Vs Ahmedabad Urban Development authority(Supreme Court) Date-3rd November,2022 The Supreme Court today was hearing a miscellaneous application which was filed by the department seeking clarification in relation to the judgement of the Supreme Court which was pronounced on 19th October, 2022 (original judgement)regarding interpretation of Section 2(15) of Income-tax Act,1961. As the original judgement was related to a bunch of appeals, in paragraph 254 of the original judgement, the Ld Judges had pronounced final judgements in various sub paragraphs wherein some of…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
2(15) of Income-tax Act, 1961
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemptions) Vs Ahmedabad Urban Development authority(Supreme Court) Date-3rd November,2022 The Supreme Court today was hearing a miscellaneous application which was filed by the department seeking clarification in relation to the judgement of the Supreme Court which was pronounced on 19th October, 2022 (original judgement)regarding interpretation of Section 2(15) of Income-tax Act,1961. As the original judgement was related to a bunch of appeals, in paragraph 254 of the original judgement, the Ld Judges had pronounced final judgements in various sub paragraphs wherein some of… - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- 2(15) of Income-tax Act - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
- 1961 - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- Heart Foundation of India v. CIT - ITAT Mumbai
- Ramesh Kumar Patodia Vs Citibank N.A. - Court / Tribunal to be verified
- ACIT vs. ARMEE INFOTECH - Court / Tribunal to be verified
Different outcome / possible distinction
- Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , Kanpur Vs AR Polymers Pvt ltd - Quashed / set aside
- Ambaradi Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. & Others - Allowed
Related Finin2min resources
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: Sanitized official primary judgment copy · Repository status: Published
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Sections and statute
The numbered references below belong to the statutes and versions identified in this judgment. They are citation labels, not a crosswalk to same-number sections of the Income-tax Act, 2025.
Section 2