Assessee trust was providing general public utility (GPU) services by conducting sports facilities and coaching for various sports on a ground given to it on lease by the government. It was collecting charges at differential rates for these facilities from its members and non-members. Assessing Officer held that assessee had violated provisions of section 13 by conferring undue benefit to ‘specified persons’ as per section 13(1) and, therefore, passed assessment order treating it as a mutual concern. CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to treat assessee as an AOP and allow expenses claimed after due examination. On an appeal by the revenue, the Tribunal held that in  Asstt. CIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2023) 291 Taxman 11/ (2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC) gave a correct interpretation of the proviso to section 2(15) in the context of the GPU category of cases of charitable entities. Since the assessee was covered under the GPU clause of section 2(15), while considering the assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11, the proviso to section 2(15) had to be considered in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in AUDA (supra). The matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after applying provisions of section 2(15) in light of the decision of the Supreme Court  (AY. 2013-14 to 2018-19)