Gujarat Municipal Finance Board v. Dy. CIT (Guj)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

…ing precedents in the case of CIDCO, the receipts arising to the Assessee in its capacity as an SPA is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the Assessee. The Assessee also places reliance on the decision in the case of Gujarat Municipal Finance Board [1996] 221 ITR 317 (Guj HC) and the same is enclosed herewith at Pg. 196 to 203” 11. We have heard both the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the elaborate submissions made by referring to provisions of MMRDA Act, MRTP Act, provisions contained in the Act as well as judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay. At the outs…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

…ing precedents in the case of CIDCO, the receipts arising to the Assessee in its capacity as an SPA is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the Assessee. The Assessee also places reliance on the decision in the case of Gujarat Municipal Finance Board [1996] 221 ITR 317 (Guj HC) and the same is enclosed herewith at Pg. 196 to 203” 11. We have heard both the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the elaborate submissions made by referring to provisions of MMRDA Act, MRTP Act, provisions contained in the Act as well as judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay. At the outs…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

…ing precedents in the case of CIDCO, the receipts arising to the Assessee in its capacity as an SPA is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the Assessee. The Assessee also places reliance on the decision in the case of Gujarat Municipal Finance Board [1996] 221 ITR 317 (Guj HC) and the same is enclosed herewith at Pg. 196 to 203" 11. We have heard both the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the elaborate submissions made by referring to provisions of MMRDA Act, MRTP Act, provisions contained in the Act as well as judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay. At the outs…

DCIT - 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6425/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6426/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 1140/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Maharashtra Tourism Tax, Circle 1(2)(2), Development Corporation Room No. 535, 5 Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd. फनाभ/ Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 C.D.O. Hutments, Opp. Lic 020 Bldg, Mada Cama Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacm0712G अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Mamta Bansal, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Anil Sathe, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-8, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora; Ay 10-11 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-365 & 366/15-16, Cit(A)- 2/It/10479/2016-17 Vide Dated 07.08.2017, 17.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(2), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 01.03.2013, 27.03.2015, 28.12.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

…al Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd. (Kar) 57 taxmann.com 349 Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora; AY 10-11 • CIT & Anr. Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corporation (Kar) 203 CTR 422 • Gujarat Municipal Finance Board vs. Dy. CIT (Guj) 221 ITR 317 • ITO v. Harijan Evam Nirbal Varg Avas Nigam Ltd. (Allahabad) 29 TTJ 57 • Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. vs. ITO (Guj) 25 taxmann.com 14 • Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertiliser Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (And) 2 ITD51 • Gujarat State Police vs. Asst. CIT (Ahd) 40 CCH 523 • Tamil Nadu Urban Finance & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd vs. Asst. CIT…

DCIT - 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the revenue appeals stand dismissed

…CIT vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd. (Kar) 57 taxmann.com 349 • CIT & Anr. Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corporation (Kar) 203 CTR 422 • Gujarat Municipal Finance Board vs. Dy. CIT (Guj) 221 ITR 317 • ITO v. Harijan Evam Nirbal Varg Avas Nigam Ltd. (Allahabad) 29 TTJ 57 • Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. vs. ITO (Guj) 25 taxmann.com 14 7 M/s. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. • Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertiliser Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (And) 2 ITD51 • Gujarat State Police vs. Asst. CIT (Ahd) 40 CCH 523 • Tamil Nadu Urban Finance & Inf…

MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Maharashtra Industrial Deputy Commissioner Of Income Development Corporation Tax (Exemption)-2(1), बिधम/ Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacm3560C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…) 7 ITR 316 (CA); (ii) Brown Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1965) 57 ITR 729 (HL); (iii) Sandersons and Morgans Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 433 (Cal); (iv) CIT Vs. Tanubhai D. Desai (1972) 84 ITR 713 (Bom); and (v) Gujarat Municipal Finance Board Vs. DCIT (1996) 221 ITR 317 (Guj). In the backdrop of the aforesaid contentions, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R that as the government had only vested the possession of the lands with the assessee corporation, hence only a fiduciary relationship was created between the assessee corporation and the government by the operation of law and no beneficial interest was conferred…