New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. State of Punjab

7 SCC 339Reported decision1979#4440 most cited

What is New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. State of Punjab authority for?

An activity is not considered trade or business unless it is carried out with a profit motive. Mere sale of government properties or granting leases and licenses does not constitute trade or business.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. State of Punjab · Article 289 · trade or business · profit motive · sale of government properties · leases and licenses

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 10(20A)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 154Section 13Section 13(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)section 11(2)(a)section 10(20)section 58section 12aa(3)section 13(8)section 13(3)section 4(2)section 60section 11(5)section 13(1)(d)advancement of general public utility

Judgments citing New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. State of Punjab

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 22/LKW/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…e Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). In paragraph 140 of its order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted from its earlier order in the case of New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. State of Punjab (1979) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Hon'ble Court had held that unless an activity in the nature of trade and business is carried out with a profit motive, it would not be a trade or business contemplated by Clause ii of Article 289. By way of example, it had been highlighted that mere sale of Government properties, movable or immovable or granting of leases and licenses…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 21/LKW/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…e Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). In paragraph 140 of its order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted from its earlier order in the case of New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. State of Punjab (1979) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Hon'ble Court had held that unless an activity in the nature of trade and business is carried out with a profit motive, it would not be a trade or business contemplated by Clause ii of Article 289. By way of example, it had been highlighted that mere sale of Government properties, movable or immovable or granting of leases and licenses…

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

ITA 535/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel & Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12A

…e Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). In paragraph 140 of its order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted from its earlier order in the case of New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. State of Punjab (1979) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Hon'ble Court had held that unless an activity in the nature of trade and business is carried out with a profit motive, it would not be a trade or business contemplated by Clause ii of Article 289. By way of example, it had been highlighted that mere sale of Government properties, movable or immovable or granting of leases and licenses…

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

ITA 534/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel &
Section 11Section 12A

…e Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). In paragraph 140 of its order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted from its earlier order in the case of New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. State of Punjab (1979) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Hon'ble Court had held that unless an activity in the nature of trade and business is carried out with a profit motive, it would not be a trade or business contemplated by Clause ii of Article 289. By way of example, it had been highlighted that mere sale of Government properties, movable or immovable or granting of leases and licenses…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 533/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…e Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). In paragraph 140 of its order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted from its earlier order in the case of New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. State of Punjab (1979) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Hon'ble Court had held that unless an activity in the nature of trade and business is carried out with a profit motive, it would not be a trade or business contemplated by Clause ii of Article 289. By way of example, it had been highlighted that mere sale of Government properties, movable or immovable or granting of leases and licenses…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 532/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…e Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). In paragraph 140 of its order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted from its earlier order in the case of New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. State of Punjab (1979) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Hon'ble Court had held that unless an activity in the nature of trade and business is carried out with a profit motive, it would not be a trade or business contemplated by Clause ii of Article 289. By way of example, it had been highlighted that mere sale of Government properties, movable or immovable or granting of leases and licenses…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…ase of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 Authority (supra). In paragraph 140 of its order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted from its earlier order in the case of New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. State of Punjab (1979) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Hon’ble Court had held that unless an activity in the nature of trade and business is carried out with a profit motive, it would not be a trade or business contemplated by Clause ii of Article 289. By way of example, it had been highlighted that mere sale of Government properties, movable or immovable or granting of leases and licenses…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…ase of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 Authority (supra). In paragraph 140 of its order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted from its earlier order in the case of New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. State of Punjab (1979) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Hon’ble Court had held that unless an activity in the nature of trade and business is carried out with a profit motive, it would not be a trade or business contemplated by Clause ii of Article 289. By way of example, it had been highlighted that mere sale of Government properties, movable or immovable or granting of leases and licenses…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…ase of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 Authority (supra). In paragraph 140 of its order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted from its earlier order in the case of New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. State of Punjab (1979) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Hon’ble Court had held that unless an activity in the nature of trade and business is carried out with a profit motive, it would not be a trade or business contemplated by Clause ii of Article 289. By way of example, it had been highlighted that mere sale of Government properties, movable or immovable or granting of leases and licenses…

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1073/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…e Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). In paragraph 140 of its order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted from its earlier order in the case of New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. State of Punjab (1979) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Hon’ble Court had held that unless an activity in the nature of trade and business is carried out with a profit motive, it would not be a trade or business contemplated by Clause ii of Article 289. By way of example, it had been highlighted that mere sale of Government properties, movable or immovable or granting of leases and licenses…

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1072/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…e Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). In paragraph 140 of its order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted from its earlier order in the case of New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. State of Punjab (1979) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Hon’ble Court had held that unless an activity in the nature of trade and business is carried out with a profit motive, it would not be a trade or business contemplated by Clause ii of Article 289. By way of example, it had been highlighted that mere sale of Government properties, movable or immovable or granting of leases and licenses…

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1071/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…e Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). In paragraph 140 of its order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted from its earlier order in the case of New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. State of Punjab (1979) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Hon’ble Court had held that unless an activity in the nature of trade and business is carried out with a profit motive, it would not be a trade or business contemplated by Clause ii of Article 289. By way of example, it had been highlighted that mere sale of Government properties, movable or immovable or granting of leases and licenses…

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 273/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…e Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). In paragraph 140 of its order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted from its earlier order in the case of New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. State of Punjab (1979) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Hon’ble Court had held that unless an activity in the nature of trade and business is carried out with a profit motive, it would not be a trade or business contemplated by Clause ii of Article 289. By way of example, it had been highlighted that mere sale of Government properties, movable or immovable or granting of leases and licenses…

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 520/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…eme \nCourt in the case of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). In \nparagraph 140 of its order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted from its earlier order in the case of \nNew Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. State of Punjab (1979) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Hon’ble Court \nhad held that unless an activity in the nature of trade and business is carried out with a profit \nmotive, it would not be a trade or business contemplated by Clause ii of Article 289. By way of \nexample, it had been highlighted that mere sale of Government properties, movable or \nimmovable or granting of leases and…

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 518/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…eme \nCourt in the case of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra). In \nparagraph 140 of its order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted from its earlier order in the case of \nNew Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. State of Punjab (1979) 7 SCC 339, wherein the Hon’ble Court \nhad held that unless an activity in the nature of trade and business is carried out with a profit \nmotive, it would not be a trade or business contemplated by Clause ii of Article 289. By way of \nexample, it had been highlighted that mere sale of Government properties, movable or \nimmovable or granting of leases and…

MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELPOMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM ITA No. 39 & 457/Mum/2024 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2017-18) Asst. Commissioner of Maharashtra Housing & Area Income Tax (Exemption), Development Authority Circle 2, R. No. 608, Finance Controller, MHADA, 6th floor, Cumballa Hill Griha Nirman Bhavan, Vs. 4th Floor, Kala Nagar, Telephone Exchange Bandra (East) Building, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 026 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAAJM0344H Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar, AR Revenue by : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR Date of hearing:…

DCIT (EXEMPTION)- 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MUMBAI

ITA 1765/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)

…e State Government having regard to the other features noticed above. Shri Venugopal then relied upon two decisions of this Court reported in 1970 (3) SCC 323 Shri Ramtanu Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and (1997) 7 SCC 339 New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. In Shri Ramtanu Co- operative Housing Society; the question which arises for consideration in the instant appeal did not arise at all. The question was whether the State of Maharashtra was competent to enact the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and whether the impugned Legislation…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1116/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…vernment. He submitted that the assessee passes all the tests necessary in the opinion of the Supreme Court in this case and qualifies itself as a State. 2.48 The nine judge bench of the Supreme Court in New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab, (1997) 7 SCC 339, has held that an activity can be described as trade or business only when it is carried on with profit motive. Accordingly, it held that only where a trade or business is carried on with profit motive, clause (2) of Article 289 would be attracted. Where there is no profit motive involved in any activity carried on by the State Government, the Cour…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1115/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…vernment. He submitted that the assessee passes all the tests necessary in the opinion of the Supreme Court in this case and qualifies itself as a State. 2.48 The nine judge bench of the Supreme Court in New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab, (1997) 7 SCC 339, has held that an activity can be described as trade or business only when it is carried on with profit motive. Accordingly, it held that only where a trade or business is carried on with profit motive, clause (2) of Article 289 would be attracted. Where there is no profit motive involved in any activity carried on by the State Government, the Cour…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1114/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…vernment. He submitted that the assessee passes all the tests necessary in the opinion of the Supreme Court in this case and qualifies itself as a State. 2.48 The nine judge bench of the Supreme Court in New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab, (1997) 7 SCC 339, has held that an activity can be described as trade or business only when it is carried on with profit motive. Accordingly, it held that only where a trade or business is carried on with profit motive, clause (2) of Article 289 would be attracted. Where there is no profit motive involved in any activity carried on by the State Government, the Cour…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2