← All Phrases

“Section 10(15)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(15)157 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(15) is Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (121 ITR 1), cited in 328 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(15)

Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association
121 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
328
citing judgments

A charitable institution, whose predominant object is general public utility, can engage in non-charitable activities yielding incidental profits, provided these profits are deployed to achieve the dominant charitable object. A subsidiary object, if ancillary to the primary charitable purpose, does not negate the institution's charitable character.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd.
233 ITR 468 · 1998 · Supreme Court
246
citing judgments

Expenditure providing an enduring advantage, such as upfront lease rent for land, is revenue expenditure if no capital asset is acquired or generated, allowing for deduction under Section 37, even when capitalized in the books of account.

Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT
372 ITR 699 · 2015 · Supreme Court
152
citing judgments

An educational institution that generates a surplus does not automatically lose its charitable status or cease to exist solely for educational purposes. This is true if the surplus is reinvested for its educational objectives, and the predominant object test determines if the institution's primary aim is education or profit.

India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption)
371 ITR 333 · 2015 · High Court
128
citing judgments

An institution engaged in the advancement of general public utility retains its charitable character and eligibility for exemptions under Section 11 or approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) provided profit is not its predominant motive, even if it generates incidental surpluses or collects fees.

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
10 SCC 304 · 1996 · Reported
123
citing judgments

A 'trade' is primarily defined as the exchange of goods for goods or money, and secondarily as a business carried on with a view to profit. The term 'business' is more comprehensive than 'trade', encompassing manufacturing activities.

American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institute v. CBDT
301 ITR 86 · 2008 · Supreme Court
111
citing judgments

An educational institution is eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) if it exists solely for educational purposes, even if it generates incidental profits. The mere existence of profit does not disqualify an institution from exemption.

(State of T.N v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras
4 SCC 630 · 1989 · Reported
108
citing judgments

An activity, even if it involves sales, does not constitute "business" for tax purposes if it is an incidental part of the main activities of a public utility entity and lacks a profit motive. The presence of a profit motive is generally essential to classify an activity as business.

Judgments citing Section 10(15)

M/S. Bank of American, N.A, Mumbai vs. The Jt DIT (I.T)3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to the deletion of the disallowance of expenditure incurred on earning the income exempt under section 10(15) and section 10(23G) of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts ... year under consideration, the assessee earned interest income of Rs.45 lakh on investments in tax-free bonds, which was claimed as exempt under section 10(15) of the Act. The assessee also earned interest income amounting to Rs.14,18,82,201 from loans given for infrastructure projects, which was claimed

The Dy DIT (I.T) 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bank of America N.A., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4090/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to the deletion of the disallowance of expenditure incurred on earning the income exempt under section 10(15) and section 10(23G) of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts ... year under consideration, the assessee earned interest income of Rs.45 lakh on investments in tax-free bonds, which was claimed as exempt under section 10(15) of the Act. The assessee also earned interest income amounting to Rs.14,18,82,201 from loans given for infrastructure projects, which was claimed

Narendra Kumar Mishra, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(1), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 233/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

For Appellant: Narendra Kumar Mishra, Bhopal
Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

examine facts of investments in PSU bonds/“debenture with regard to eligibility of assessee’s claim considering eligibility criteria laid down in section 10(15)(iv)(h). Page 26 of 43 Narendra Kumar Mishra ITA No. 233/Ind/2025 - AY 2020-21 23 Whether, thus issue was to be remanded back

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1560/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpia, Am &

Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B(1)Section 92C

adjustment made to the arm's length price in respect of back office support services. 2. Expenses apportioned against income exempted under section 10(15), 10(34) and 10(35)- Disallowance u/s. 14A: Rs.37,99,40,048 [Para 4.5, pages 28 and 29 of the CIT(A) order ... expenses at Rs. 48,32,00,000 as against 10,32,59,952 made by the Appellant to the income exempt under section 10(15), 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act by applying provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. Disallowance

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1446/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpia, Am &

Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B(1)Section 92C

adjustment made to the arm's length price in respect of back office support services. 2. Expenses apportioned against income exempted under section 10(15), 10(34) and 10(35)- Disallowance u/s. 14A: Rs.37,99,40,048 [Para 4.5, pages 28 and 29 of the CIT(A) order ... expenses at Rs. 48,32,00,000 as against 10,32,59,952 made by the Appellant to the income exempt under section 10(15), 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act by applying provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. Disallowance

United India Insurance Co Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-3, Chennai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are partly allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2017-18 (in ITA No

ITA 182/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1759/Chny/2019, 182 & 183/Chny/2021, 430/Chny/2022 & 683/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of O/O The Chief Manager, Cfac Income Tax – 3, Department, Head Office, United India Chennai 600 034. Nalanda, Door No. 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Utamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundararaman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1759/Chny/2019 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals In Ita No. 182 & 183/Chny/2021 Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Both Dated 28.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. Pcit-3, Chennai For The Assessment 2015-16 & 2016-17. The 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

correct for the very fact that deduction of dividends under sections 10(34) of the Act and deduction of interest under section 10(15) of the Act have been allowed for all assessment years without any dispute, and argued, it is amply clear that deduction under section 10 ... under section 10(38) of the Act. Further, income from VCF as tax is paid by fund, interest on tax free bonds under section 10(15)(i) of the Act, dividend income received from VCF under section 10(34) of the Act and dividend income under section 10

Nutan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1023/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)

controversy identified by Principal CIT was that the assessee had earned exempt interest of ₹2,64,40,614/- from tax-free bonds under section 10(15) of the Act. The Principal CIT noted that once exempt income exists, section 14A read with Rule 8D is attracted, and the assessee

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 1550/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

price at 1,84,16,207 as against 2,07,44,132 made by the TPO. 2. Expenses apportioned against income exempted under section 10(15), 10(34) and 10(35)-Disallowance u/s. 14A: ₹33,49,50,562 [Para 27, page 15 of the CIT(A) order] On the facts ... apportionment of expenses at ₹44,89,00,000 as against 11,39,49,438 made by the Appellant to the income exempt under section 10(15), 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act by applying provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. Disallowance

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 4418/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

price at 1,84,16,207 as against 2,07,44,132 made by the TPO. 2. Expenses apportioned against income exempted under section 10(15), 10(34) and 10(35)-Disallowance u/s. 14A: ₹33,49,50,562 [Para 27, page 15 of the CIT(A) order] On the facts ... apportionment of expenses at ₹44,89,00,000 as against 11,39,49,438 made by the Appellant to the income exempt under section 10(15), 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act by applying provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. Disallowance

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1682/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

assessee claimed exemption of 263,78,71,983/-, comprising— interest income of ₹ ₹136,28,92,790/- under section 10(15) of the under section 10(15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income ... that an assessee engaged in insurance (Bom), wherein it was held that an assessee engaged in insurance business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1681/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

assessee claimed exemption of 263,78,71,983/-, comprising— interest income of ₹ ₹136,28,92,790/- under section 10(15) of the under section 10(15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income ... that an assessee engaged in insurance (Bom), wherein it was held that an assessee engaged in insurance business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1680/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

assessee claimed exemption of 263,78,71,983/-, comprising— interest income of ₹ ₹136,28,92,790/- under section 10(15) of the under section 10(15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income ... that an assessee engaged in insurance (Bom), wherein it was held that an assessee engaged in insurance business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1679/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

assessee claimed exemption of 263,78,71,983/-, comprising— interest income of ₹ ₹136,28,92,790/- under section 10(15) of the under section 10(15) of the Income-tax tax tax Act, Act, Act, 1961 1961 1961 (“the (“the (“the Act”); Act”); Act”); dividend dividend dividend income income income ... that an assessee engaged in insurance (Bom), wherein it was held that an assessee engaged in insurance business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15), as the business is entitled to exemption under section 10(15

Lintas Employees Health Assistance Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4364/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Lintas Employees Health Income-Tax Officer, Assistance Trust Ward – 25(2)(1), 13Th Floor, Express Towers Mumbai Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021 (Pan: Aaatl0325M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Prakash Jotwani & Ms Priya Gada, Advocates Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Hyderabad Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1074797264(1), Dated 21.03.2025 Passed Against The Intimation Issued By The Central Processing Centre Of The Department, Bengaluru (Cpc) U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 12.05.2020 For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1: Erred In Not Condoning Delay In Filing The Appeal The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering The Merits Of The Case & Erred In Not Condoning The Delay Of 964 Days In Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani and Ms Priya Gada, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 10(15)Section 10(35)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Bajaj Holding & Investment Ltd ( Foremerly Known As Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 5510/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 14ASection 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT

Lintas Employees Recreation Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3747/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

consideration the assessee has earned income from free bonds to the tune of Rs. 86,851/- and claimed the same as exempt under section 10(15) of the Act. The assessee while filing the return of income has made a suo- motu disallowance of Rs.1,79,463/- being

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5749/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

consideration the assessee has earned income from free bonds to the tune of Rs. 86,851/- and claimed the same as exempt under section 10(15) of the Act. The assessee while filing the return of income has made a suo- motu disallowance of Rs.1,79,463/- being

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4172/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

consideration the assessee has earned income from free bonds to the tune of Rs. 86,851/- and claimed the same as exempt under section 10(15) of the Act. The assessee while filing the return of income has made a suo- motu disallowance of Rs.1,79,463/- being

Lintas Employees Hobbies and Craft Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1801/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Priya Gada, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 10(15)Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K (SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI