LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 1112Decided 19 Oct 2022
Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017
Uday Umesh Lalit · S. Ravindra Bhat · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

This was a mega-batch of over 100 tagged appeals from across India, all turning on the same question: whether statutory and non-statutory bodies that carry out functions of "general public utility" (GPU), such as urban development authorities (e.g. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, AUDA), housing boards, improvement trusts, professional regulators like ICAI, trade promotion bodies, state cricket associations, and private charitable trusts: lose their income-tax exemption as "charitable" institutions when they charge fees for services connected to those functions. The dispute arose because Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, especially after a 2009 amendment, excludes "advancement of any other object of general public utility" from being treated as charitable if the entity is engaged in any activity "in the nature of trade, commerce or business" for a fee, cess or consideration above a prescribed monetary threshold. Tax authorities had denied exemptions to AUDA and many similar bodies on the ground that fees they charged (for land development, registration, certification, etc.) amounted to commercial receipts.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court laid down a comprehensive interpretive framework: an entity advancing general public utility can still carry on incidental trade/business activity connected to its charitable objects, but loses exemption only if the consideration charged is markedly or significantly above cost (not merely cost-plus-nominal-markup) and the receipts exceed the statutorily prescribed quantitative limit (which has changed from Rs. 10 lakh, to Rs. 25 lakh, to 20% of total receipts over the years). For statutory bodies like development authorities and housing boards performing essential public functions such as housing, water supply, and town planning, their receipts are prima facie excluded from being "business" receipts, though this must still be checked yearly against actual cost-versus-charge. Applying this framework to the specific parties, the Court rejected the revenue's appeals against AUDA and similar urban/housing development authorities and improvement trusts (they retain their exemption), dismissed the appeals against ICAI, ERNET and NIXI, but ruled against GS1 India and the Tribune Trust (whose income was genuinely commercial/business in nature), and remitted the cricket associations' and some other cases for fresh factual determination applying the new test.

Lesson Learnt

A charitable or public body does not automatically lose its tax-exempt status merely because it charges fees for its services: exemption depends on whether the charges are roughly at cost (charitable) or significantly marked up for profit (commercial), and on staying within the statutory revenue threshold; this case-by-case, cost-versus-charge test now governs how tax authorities must assess public utility bodies across the country.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware