State Road Transport Corporation v. Commissioner of Income

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

…ssee is not a local authority for the purpose of section 10(20). In doing so he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, 283 ITR 97 (SC), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT, 286 ITR 350, CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS CIT 219 ITR 515 (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) wherein it has been held that institutions set up for the specific purposes, does not amount to 'local authority' for the purpose of section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. 17. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel squarely admitte…

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

…ssee is not a local authority for the purpose of section 10(20). In doing so he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, 283 ITR 97 (SC), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT, 286 ITR 350, CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS CIT 219 ITR 515 (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) wherein it has been held that institutions set up for the specific purposes, does not amount to 'local authority' for the purpose of section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. 17. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel squarely admitte…

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

…ssee is not a local authority for the purpose of section 10(20). In doing so he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, 283 ITR 97 (SC), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT, 286 ITR 350, CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS CIT 219 ITR 515 (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) wherein it has been held that institutions set up for the specific purposes, does not amount to 'local authority' for the purpose of section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. 17. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel squarely admitt…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 4391, 4392,4393,4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA NOs. 34 & 35/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2011-12) Mumbai Metropolitan Region v. DDIT (Exemption) – 1(1) Development Authority (MMRDA) Room No. 519, 5th Floor Plot No. C-14 & C-15 Piramal Chambers Bandra Kurla Complex Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 4986, 4987, 4988,4989,4990/MUM/2…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 4391, 4392,4393,4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA NOs. 34 & 35/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2011-12) Mumbai Metropolitan Region v. DDIT (Exemption) – 1(1) Development Authority (MMRDA) Room No. 519, 5th Floor Plot No. C-14 & C-15 Piramal Chambers Bandra Kurla Complex Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 4986, 4987, 4988,4989,4990/MUM/2…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 4391, 4392,4393,4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA NOs. 34 & 35/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2011-12) Mumbai Metropolitan Region v. DDIT (Exemption) – 1(1) Development Authority (MMRDA) Room No. 519, 5th Floor Plot No. C-14 & C-15 Piramal Chambers Bandra Kurla Complex Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 4986, 4987, 4988,4989,4990/MUM/2…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 4391, 4392,4393,4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA NOs. 34 & 35/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2011-12) Mumbai Metropolitan Region v. DDIT (Exemption) – 1(1) Development Authority (MMRDA) Room No. 519, 5th Floor Plot No. C-14 & C-15 Piramal Chambers Bandra Kurla Complex Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 4986, 4987, 4988,4989,4990/MUM/2…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 4391, 4392,4393,4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA NOs. 34 & 35/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2011-12) Mumbai Metropolitan Region v. DDIT (Exemption) – 1(1) Development Authority (MMRDA) Room No. 519, 5th Floor Plot No. C-14 & C-15 Piramal Chambers Bandra Kurla Complex Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 4986, 4987, 4988,4989,4990/MUM/2…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Mumbai Metropolitan Vs. Director Of Income Tax Region Development (Exemptions), Mumbai Authority, Plot No. C-14 & 15, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaatm7106R Appellant) .. Respondent)

…(20) of the I.T. Act. Hence, its income from house property, interest, etc is liable to be' tax. Reliance is placed in the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Commissioner of Income tax (2006) 286 ITR 350 (ALL.) wherein it has been held that the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation is not a Local Authority within the meaning of section 10(20) of the I.T. Act,1961 and its, income from house property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. While 7 Mumbai Me…

DY D.I.T. (E)-I(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMRDA), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Garg

…ssee is not a local authority for the purpose of section 10(20). In doing so he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, 283 ITR 97 (SC), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT, 286 ITR 350, CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION - VS - CIT 219 ITR 515 (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) wherein it has been held that institutions set up for the specific purposes, does not amount to 'local authority' for the purpose of section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. 17. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel squarely ad…

M/S. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. THE ADIT(E) RG- 1, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Garg

…ssee is not a local authority for the purpose of section 10(20). In doing so he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, 283 ITR 97 (SC), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT, 286 ITR 350, CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION - VS - CIT 219 ITR 515 (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) wherein it has been held that institutions set up for the specific purposes, does not amount to 'local authority' for the purpose of section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. 17. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel squarely ad…