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

ITA 4177/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2581 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RONAK G DOSHI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Charitable institution; Maximum Marginal Rate; Question of law; Notional interest
• Section: 260A; 12A; 12AA; 28; 10; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.5576 & 5580/M/2007, 4177/M/2008, 5761/M/201 0 & 6756/M/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-0 8 & 2008-09 DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPT)-I(2), R. NO.504, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, 5 TH FLOOR, PAREL, MUMBAI - 12 VS. M/S. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMRDA), GRIHA NIRMAN BHAVAN, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 51 PAN: AAATM7106R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.5421 & 5422/M/2007, 3841/M/2008, 5957/M/201 0 & 6674/M/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-0 8 & 2008-09 M/S. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMRDA), PLOT NO.C-14 & C-15, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 051 PAN: AAATM7106R VS. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMP)-I(1), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RONAK G. DOSHI, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI N.P. SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 04.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.07.2016 O R D E R PER BENCH: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND CORR ESPONDING CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] DATED 14.06.2007, 15.06.2007, 31.03.2008, 10.03.201 0 & 19.07.2011 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007 -08 & 2008-09 ITA NOS.5576 & 5580/M/2007 & OTHERS M/S. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY (MMRDA) 2 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE, HENCE THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGE THER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPE ALS OF THE REVENUE. REVENUES APPEALS : 2. COMMON GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEALS FOR DIFFERENT YEARS. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPE ALS OF THE REVENUE IS WHETHER ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S ECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REG ION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMRDA) WAS A LOCAL AUTHORITY CREATED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AS PER THE MMRDA ACT, 1974. ASSESSEE WA S CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF ITS INCOME AS PER SECTION 10 (20A) OF THE IT. ACT TILL A.Y.2002-03. SECTION 10(20A) WAS REMOVED FROM THE S TATUTE W.E.F. AY.2003-04. FURTHERMORE, SECTION 10(20) WHICH DEFIN ED LOCAL AUTHORITIES PLACED LIMITATIONS UNDER THIS SECTION. HENCE ASSESS EE NO MORE ENJOYED EXEMPTION U/S 10(20A) OR SECTION 10(20). THEREFORE, ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SEC. 12A WITH THE DIRECTOR O F INCOME- TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI, AND WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12A VIDE O RDER OF DIT NO. DIT(E)/MCI12A136714/2003 DTD. 22.07.2002. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE AO), HOWEVER OBSERVED THAT DESPITE THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTIO N 12A HAVING NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE DIT(E), THE AO WAS ENTITLED TO GO BEYOND AND VERIFY WHETHER ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE ACTIVITY AND WHETHER IT WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 1 1 OF IT ACT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AT THE TIME OF GRANTING OF RE GISTRATION U/S.12A, THE DIT IS NOT REQUIRED TO VERIFY THE APPLICATION OF INCOME AND AS SUCH DESPITE REGISTRATION, AO CAN DENY THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTI ON 11. THE A.O. THEREAFTER PROCEEDED TO EXAMINE WHETHER MMRDA WAS A VALID TRUST WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 11 TO 13 AND WHETHER IT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION. HE CONCLUDED THAT MMRDA IS NOT A VALID T RUST AND IS NOT ITA NOS.5576 & 5580/M/2007 & OTHERS M/S. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY (MMRDA) 3 ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 FOR THE FOLL OWING REASONS: '(1) WITHIN THE MEANING OF PREAMBLE TO THE MMRDA AC T, 1974, THE HANDING OVER OF OWNERSHIP, CONTROL, MANAGEMENT OF T HE MMRDA HITHERTO BELONGING TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS CONSIDERED NOT TO HAVE CREATED A LAWFUL TRUST WITHIN THE MEANI NG OF TERM TRUST USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11, 12, 12A, 12AA A ND 13 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. (2) THE MMRDA WAS CREATED AS A LOCAL AUTHORITY WITHIN T HE MEANING OF TERM 'PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 AND W.E.F. ITS INCEPTION TO 2002, THE MMRDA CONTINUES TO BE LO CAL AUTHORITY IN THE EYES OF LAW. IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A PUBLI C TRUST OR CHARITABLE TRUST OR TRUST OF ANY OTHER KIND. (3) ON A PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE INTENTION BEHIND THE ENACTMENT OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 11, 12, 12A, 12AA AND 13 OF TH E I.T. ACT, 1961, IT APPEARS THAT THE TAX INCENTIVE PROPOSED IN THE SCHE ME OF EXEMPTION FROM CHARGE OF INCOME TAX IS MORE APPLICA BLE TO THE CASE OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL AND GROUPS AND ASSOCIATION WH O CREATE VALID PUBLIC TRUST AND DEDICATE ITS INCOME FOR THE PURPOS E OF GENERAL PUBLIC WELFARE,. THE SCHEME OF SECTION 11 TO 13 SPECIFICAL LY THE RESTRICTIVE PROVISION OF SECTION 13 CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE T O THE CASE OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES/PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS/PUBLI C SECTOR UTILITY SERVICE PROVIDER. THE BASIC INCENTIVE PROVIDED IN T HE EXEMPTION SECTION CANNOT BE INTENDED FOR UTILIZATION OF PUBLI C PROPERTY AND APPLICATION OF INCOME OF PUBLIC PROPERTY ADMINISTER ED THROUGH GOVT. REACHING THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE. (4) THE ABSENCE OF PROFIT MOTIVE IN THE FUNCTIONIN G OF THE MMRDA DOES NOT BY ITSELF CREATE A SITUATION OF TOTAL EXEMPTION FROM THE CHARGE OF INCOME TAX IN RESPECT OF INCOME WHICH HAS EARNED OR LIKELY TO EARN FROM ITS ACTIVITIES COMPRISING OF PROVIDING VARIOUS INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES AND ALSO DERIVING INCOME ANCILLARY TO ITS PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES SUCH AS RENTAL INCOME FROM LET OUT PROPERTY/ SALE AND LEASI NG OUT OF COMMERCIAL PLOTS TO ITS CUSTOMERS, DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS ETC. IN VIEW OF THE NATURE AND ACTIVITIES BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE LEGAL STATUS DISCUSSED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS, ITS CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE I. T. ACT CAN NOT BE ENTERTAINED. 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT DURING THE CURRENCY OF REGISTRATION GRANTED BY THE LD. DIT (E), AO CANN OT DENY REGISTRATION AND REFUSE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT (A) UP HELD ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT AO WAS NOT ENTITLED TO E XAMINE WHETHER SUCH ITA NOS.5576 & 5580/M/2007 & OTHERS M/S. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY (MMRDA) 4 TRUST OR INSTITUTION WAS CREATED FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE OR NOT ONCE IT WAS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A. THE L EARNED CIT (A) RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. MRS. DWARIKA PRASAD TRUS T (1989), 30 LTD 84 (DELHI) II) AUDIT BUREAU OF CIRCULATION VS. ADIT, 55 LTD 4 08 (BOM.) III) U.S. SRIVASTAVA EDUCATIONAL MEMORIAL SOCIETY VS. AC IT, 30 SOT 151 (LUCKNLOW) IV) STOCK EXCHANGE OF AHMEDABAD VS. ACIT 74, LTD 1 V) SURAT CITY GYMKHANA VS. ACIT 106 TAXMANN, 114 AHD ( MAG.) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING HI GH COURT JUDGMENTS: A) MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM VS. CIT (2002), 256 ITR 277 (MP) B) HIRALAL BHAGWAT VS.CIT (2000) 246 ITR 188 (GUJ.) 4. FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS QUOTED ABOVE OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE CIT (A) HELD THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO HAS TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REGISTRAT ION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF TO THE CORRECT NESS OF APPLICATION OF INCOME OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTIONS OR ACCUMULATIO N OF SUCH INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 11. HE HELD THAT AO WRONGLY ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE TRUST OR IN STITUTION WAS CREATED WHOLLY FOR CHARITABLE OR VARIOUS PURPOSES AND WHETH ER THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A WAS RIGHT OR WRONG. THE C IT (A) ALSO HELD THAT A LOCAL AUTHORITY WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SEC TIONS 11, 12 AND 13 OF THE I.T. ACT. HE IN THIS RESPECT RELIED UPON THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT MARITI ME BOARD 295 ITR 561 AND FURTHER ON THE CONCLUSIONS DERIVED IN THE DECIS ION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AP STATE ROADW AYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION 159 ITR 1 AND DIT VS. BHARAT DIAMOND BO URSE 259 ITR 280 AND CONCLUDED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FALLING U NDER SECTION 11 IT WAS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE STATUS OF ASSESSEE SHOUL D BE THAT OF A TRUST AND ANY INSTITUTION OR TRUST WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEM PTION, IF IT IS SATISFIED THE ITA NOS.5576 & 5580/M/2007 & OTHERS M/S. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY (MMRDA) 5 CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 11 TO 13. THE CIT ( A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE WHETHER THE PRESENT ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY ASSESSEE WERE FOR THE PUBLIC AT LARGE HAS ALREADY BEEN EXAMINED AND A CCEPTED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A HENCE, AO WAS PRECLUDED FROM MAKING INQUIRY ABOUT THE GENUINE NESS OF THE INSTITUTION AND CORRECTNESS OF THE CERTIFICATE REGA RDING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INSTITUTIONS BEING CHARITABLE. HE HELD THAT AO WAS EMPOWERED TO VERIFY THE APPLICATION OF INCOME ONLY AND WAS PRECLUDED FR OM MAKING INQUIRIES ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE INSTITUTION AS SUCH. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS C OME IN APPEALS BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS: '1.ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING AO TO ALLOW EXEMPTION U/ S. 11 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IGNORING THE ELABORATE DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY AO. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AO HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION BECAUSE IT IS NOT TRUST AND THAT BECAUSE IT IS NO LONGER A LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 10(20) AND THE REFORE, BY EXCLUSION NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 11. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FINDINGS OF AO THAT T HE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT ARE NOT GENUINE AND NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE.' 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS P LACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION DATED 29.06.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.5584 /MUM/2009) OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE IDENTI CAL ISSUE AND IN IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE OWN CASE O F THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING IDENTICAL ISSUE FOR AY 2006-07 AND FUR THER RELYING UPON THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF SLUM R EHABILITATION AUTHORITY, MUMBAI IN ITA NO.5150/MUM/2010 DATED 30. 9.2011 AND MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN ITA NO.5758/MUM/2010 DATED 16-11-2011 HAS DECIDED THE A PPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS ITA NOS.5576 & 5580/M/2007 & OTHERS M/S. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY (MMRDA) 6 REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 12. THE LEARNED COUNSEL PLACED ON RECORD THE COORD INATE BENCH DECISION ON THE ISSUES IN ASSESSEE'S CASE SIMILARLY CONSIDERED IN T HE CASE OF SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY (SUPRA) AND MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY (SUPRA) WHEREAS THE LEARNED CIT (DR) RELIED ON THE ORDERS O F AO. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. S O FAR AS THE MERITS OF THE CASE ARE CONCERNED, IN OUR OPINION, THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD 259 ITR 561 (SC) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO ASSESSEE'S CASE. THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED THE SIMILAR ISSUE HELD AS UNDER:- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PART IES, PERUSED THE RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE PARTIES . WE FIND THAT, IN THE PRECEDING YEARS, WHEN THE REVENUE'S APPEALS WERE DI SMISSED FOR WANT OF THE COD APPROVAL. SO FAR AS MERITS OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED , IN OUR OPINION, THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF GUJARAT MARITIME BOARDS (SUPRA) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. 5. IT IS NECESSARY TO REPRODUCE SUB-SEC. (15) OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT, WHICH DEFINES TERM 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE WHICH READS AS UND ER:- 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' INCLUDES RELIEF OF THE POOR, E DUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF, PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT INCLUDI NG WATERSHEDS, FORESTS AND WILDLIFE AND PRESERVATION OF MONUMENTS OR PLACES OR OBJECTS OF ARTISTIC OR HISTORIC INTEREST, AND TH E ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY: PROVIDED THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT O F GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IF IT INVOLVES T HE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINE SS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERAT ION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLICATION, OR RETENTION, OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY.' IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT MARITIME BOARDS (SUPRA) WHIL E INTERPRETING THE EXPRESSION 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE I.T. ACT, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- '14. WE HAVE PERUSED NUMBER OF DECISIONS OF THIS CO URT WHICH HAVE INTERPRETED THE WORDS, IN SECTION 2(15), NAMELY, 'A NY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERALLY PUBLIC UTILITY'. FROM THE SAID DECISIONS IT EMERGES THAT THE SAID EXPRESSION IS OF THE WIDEST CONNOTATION. THE WORD 'GENERAL' IN TH E SAID EXPRESSION MEANS PERTAINING TO A WHOLE CLASS. THEREFORE, ADVAN CEMENT OF ANY OBJECT OF BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC OR A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM BENEFIT TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR A GR OUP OF INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSECIT V. AHMEDABAD RANA CASTE ASSOCIATION [1983] 140 ITR 1 (SC). THE SAID EXPRESSION WOULD PR IMA FACIE INCLUDE ALL OBJECTS WHICH PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF THE GENERA L PUBLIC. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A PURPOSE WOULD CEASE TO BE CHARITABLE EVEN IF PUBLIC ITA NOS.5576 & 5580/M/2007 & OTHERS M/S. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY (MMRDA) 7 WELFARE IS INTENDED TO BE SERVED. IF THE PRIMARY PU RPOSE AND THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT ARE TO PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF TH E GENERAL PUBLIC THE PURPOSE WOULD BE CHARITABLE PURPOSE. WHEN AN OB JECT IS TO PROMOTE OR PROTECT THE INTEREST OF A PARTICULAR TRADE OR INDUS TRY THAT OBJECT BECOMES AN OBJECT OF PUBLIC UTILITY, BUT NOT SO, IF IT SEEKS T O PROMOTE THE INTEREST OF THOSE WHO CONDUCT THE SAID TRADE OR INDUSTRY CIT V. ANDHRA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 55 ITR 722 (SC). IF THE PRIMARY OR PRED OMINANT OBJECT OF AN INSTITUTION IS CHARITABLE, ANY OTHER OBJECT WHICH M IGHT NOT BE CHARITABLE BUT WHICH IS ANCILLARY OR INCIDENTAL TO THE DOMINANT PU RPOSE, WOULD NOT PREVENT THE INSTITUTION FROM BEING A VALID CHARITY ADDL. CIT V. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MFRS. ASSOCIATION 121 ITR 1 (SC). 15. THE PRESENT CASE IN OUR VIEW IS SQUARELY COVERE D BY THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. 159 ITR 1 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HEL D THAT SINCE THE CORPORATION WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROV IDING EFFICIENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM, HAVING NO PROFIT MOTIVE, THOUGH I T EARNS INCOME IN THE PROCESS, IT IS NOT LIABLE TO INCOME TAX.' IN THE PR ESENT CASE, THE SLUM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES IS ESTABLISHED FOR PROVIDIN G RESIDENTIAL SETTLEMENTS TO THE SLUM DWELLERS WITHOUT ANY PROFIT MOTIVE. MOR EOVER, PRIMARY PURPOSE AND THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT ARE TO PROMOTE T HE WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC BY PROVIDING BETTER RESIDENTIAL ACCO MMODATIONS TO SLUM DWELLERS AND ECONOMICALLY DEPRIVED CLASS OF SO CIETY AND SAID PURPOSE WOULD BE CHARITABLE IN NATURE ONLY. HENCE, IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION ASSESSEE'S CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE PRINCIPL ES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT MARIT IME BOARDS (SUPRA). 7. IN OUR OPINION, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SRA, PRESE NT ASSESSEE ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENT ITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE LT. ACT. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALSO GRANTED THE REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA THAT HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED IN T HE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGED BEFORE US AND WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE'. SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALSO EXPRESSED BY THE COORDINATE B ENCH IN THE CASE OF MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN ITA NO.5758 /MUM/2010 WHERE THE COORDINATE BENCH HELD AS UNDER: '3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE DIT (E) WHICH MEANS THAT CHARITABLE CHARACTER OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREF ORE, EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CAN NOT BE DENIED. WE AL SO FIND THAT IDENTICAL DISPUTE HAD ARISEN IN CASE OF SRA IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.5150/MUM/2010 NOTED THAT CHARITABLE PURPOSE INCLUDED ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER JOB OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. MOREOVER THE INSTITUTION HA D ALSO BEEN REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A BY THE DEPARTMENT WHICH ALSO CONF IRMED ITS CHARITABLE STATUS. THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, HELD THAT EXEMPTIO N UNDER SECTION 11 COULD NOT BE DENIED. THE FACTS IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IDENT ICAL, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SRA (SUPRA), WE SEE NO ITA NOS.5576 & 5580/M/2007 & OTHERS M/S. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY (MMRDA) 8 INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER O F CIT(A) IS UPHELD'. 14. THE FACTS OF ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR TO THE OTHER TWO INSTITUTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH, AS THEY WERE ALSO THE LOCAL AUTHO RITY CREATED BY THE GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND CONSEQUENT TO THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT OUT IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2002 TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10(20) AND 10(20A), THE EN TITIES BECOME TAXABLE. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEES APPLIED FOR EXEMPTION AND G OT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA. SINCE THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION, WE UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) ON TH IS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE REVENUE GROUNDS. ACCORDINGLY THE REVENUE APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 6. THE LD. A.R. HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE I S NOW SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION DATED 21.01.2015 OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT PASSED IN ITA NO.121 OF 2013 IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2006- 07 VIDE WHICH THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS DIS MISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE UNDER SECTION 260A O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT) CHALLENGES THE ORDER DATED 29.6.2012 PASSED B Y THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (TRIBUNAL). 2. THIS APPEAL RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE APPELLANT-REVENUE HAS FRAMED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW FOR OUR CONSID ERATION:- (1) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN CONFIRMING TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWING EXEMP TION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961, IGNORING THE FACT THAT MMRDA CONTINUES TO BE LOCAL AUTHORITY IN THE EYES O F LAW AND IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A VALID TRUST WITHIN THE ME ANING OF SECTIONS 11 TO 13 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN VIEW OF THE ELABORATE DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE? 3. THE TRIBUNAL BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL BY PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF 'CIT VS. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD, (295 I TR 56)' AND THE DECISIONS OF CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY (SRA)AND MAHARASHTRA HOUSI NG AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MHADA). IN FACT WHILE ALLOWI NG THE APPEAL, THE IMPUGNED ORDER RECORDS AS UNDER: ITA NOS.5576 & 5580/M/2007 & OTHERS M/S. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY (MMRDA) 9 14. THE FACTS OF ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR TO THE OTHER TWO INSTITUTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH, AS THEY WERE AL SO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY CREATED BY THE GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND C ONSEQUENT TO THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT OUT IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2002 TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10(20) AND 10(20A), THE ENTITI ES BECOME TAXABLE. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEES APPLIED FOR EXEMPT ION AND GOT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA. SINCE THE FACTS AR E SIMILAR, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISI ON, WE UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE REVENUE GROUNDS. ACCORDINGLY THE REVENUE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 3. MR. MALHOTRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE VE RY FAIRLY INFORMS US THAT THE REVENUES APPEALS AGAINST THE O RDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN THE CASES OF MHADA AND SRA WERE DISMISSED BY THIS COURT BY ORDER DATED 8.3.2013 AND 8.8.2014 RESPECTI VELY. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. 7. THE LD. D.R., AT THIS STAGE, THOUGH, FAIRLY ADMI TTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT SO FAR AS THE APPEALS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US ARE CONCERNED. HE, HOWEVER, HAS SUBMITTED THAT LATER O N THE REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST UNDER SECTION 12A WAS CANCELLED BY T HE DIT(E) INVOKING HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 12AA(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.12.11 THAT THE APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. WE FIND THAT SO FAR AS THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIO R TO A.Y. 2009-10 ARE CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A VALID REGISTRA TION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT AND THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2006-07. THE SAID DECISION H OLDS A BINDING PRECEDENT ON THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME AR E ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. SO FAR AS THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCER NED, THE COMMON GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEALS READ AS UNDER : ITA NOS.5576 & 5580/M/2007 & OTHERS M/S. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY (MMRDA) 10 ' GROUND I: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXII, MUMBAI ('THE CIT (A)') ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE ACTION OF THE ASSTT. DIRECT OR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-1(1), MUMBAI ('AO') IN MAKING NOTIONAL ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AGGREGATING TO 124.24 CRORE ON LOANS GI VEN AND DEPOSITS MADE WITH VARIOUS PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS (PSU)/ GOVT . OF MAHARASHTRA/GOVERNMENT BODIES. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO D ELETE THE NOTIONAL ADDITION MADE ABOVE. GROUND II: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF AO IN NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTION TO THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT 2. HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND OUGHT TO HAVE HELD T HAT: I. AS PER CLAUSE (II) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTIO N 10(20) OF THE ACT, THE TERM LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS BEEN DEFINED TO M EAN MUNICIPALITY AS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (E) OF ARTICL E 243P OF THE CONSTITUTION II BY VIRTUE OF MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPM ENT AUTHORITY (MMRDA) (SECTOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 2002 A ND SUB SECTION 2 OF SECTION 17 OF THE SAID ACT, THE APPELL ANT HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE ANY PROJECT OR SCHEME WITH A VIEW TO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE WITH SPECIFIED TERRITORIAL LIMITS AN D IT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE CORPORATION. 3. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE AO BE DIR ECTED TO ALLOW THE APPELLANT EXEMPTION U/S 10(20) OF THE ACT. APART FROM THAT, IN APPEAL FOR A.Y 2003-04, THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS HAVE ALSO BEEN TAKEN: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XXXII, MUMBAI (THE CIT(A)) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING GROUND NOS.4 AND 5, WHICH WERE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERITS, RELATING TO COMPUTATIONAL ASPECT. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE CIT(A) BE DIRECTED TO ADJUDICATE THE WITHOUT PREJUDICE GROUNDS OF APPEALS RELATING TO COMPUTATIO NAL ASPECT. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I & GROUND II 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF AO IN DENYING EXEMPTION TO THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT. 2. HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND OUGHT TO HAVE HELD T HAT: ITA NOS.5576 & 5580/M/2007 & OTHERS M/S. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY (MMRDA) 11 I. AS PER CLAUSE (II) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT, THE TERM LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS BEEN DEFINED TO MEAN MUNICIPALI TY AS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (E) OF ARTICLE 243P OF THE CONSTITUTION. APART FROM THE ABOVE STATED COMMON GROUNDS, THE FOL LOWING HAVE ALSO BEEN TAKEN IN APPEAL FOR A.Y 2004-05: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XXXII, MUMBAI (THE CIT(A)) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING GROUND NOS.4, 5, 6 AND 7, WHICH WERE WITHOUT PREJUD ICE TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERITS, TAKEN BEFORE HIM RELATING TO COMPUTATIONAL ASPECT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y 2005-06 READ AS UNDER : GROUND I 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- (APPEALS) -XXXII MUMBAI, ['THE CIT(A)'] ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEM PTIONS 1(1), MUMBAI ('THE A.O.') IN DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF EXCESS INTER EST INCOME OFFERED TO TAX IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, AMOUNTING TO RS. 11.33 CR ORES IN RESPECT OF DEPOSITS WITH SHIVSHAHI PUNARVASN PRAKALP LTD (SPPL), CIDCO, GOM-FD, MSSIDC, FDCM AND SEVERAL OTHER PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS; 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO ALLO W THE DEDUCTION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE AO BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION AGGREGATING TO RS. 11.33 CRORES AS BUSINESS LOSS U/ S. 28 OF THE ACT. GROUND II 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE D EDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF GROUND LEASE RENT RECEIVABLE OFFERED TO TAX IN EARL IER ASSESSMENT YEARS, AMOUNTING TO RS. 5.57 CRORES; 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO ALLO W THE DEDUCTION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE AO BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION AGGREGATING TO RS. 5.57 CRORES AS BUSINESS LOSS U/S . 28 OF THE ACT. GROUND III 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADDING NOTIONAL INTEREST AG GREGATING TO RS. 97.36 CRORE (INCLUDING PENAL INTEREST OF RS.14.46 CRORE) ON DEP OSITS WITH THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS(PSU)/ GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO DELE TE THE NOTIONAL ADDITION MADE AS ABOVE. APART FROM THE COMMON GROUNDS TAKEN, GROUND NO. 1 I N APPEAL FOR A.Y 2007-08 READ AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(APPEALS) 1, MUMBAI [THE CIT(A)] ERRE D IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE ITA NOS.5576 & 5580/M/2007 & OTHERS M/S. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY (MMRDA) 12 ACTION OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPT IONS)-1, MUMBAI (THE AO) IN MAKING NOTIONAL ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AGG REGATING TO RS.120.56 CRORE, ON LOANS GIVEN AND DEPOSITS MADE WITH VARIOUS PUBLIC S ECTOR UNDERTAKINGS (PSU)/GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA/GOVERNMENT BODIES. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO D ELETE THE NOTIONAL ADDITION MADE ABOVE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y 2008-09 READ AS UNDE R: GROUND I: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-] ('THE CIT(A) ') ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E) -1(1) ('THE AO') IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 12,55,52,060/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SUPPRESSION OF SALE OF LAND TRANSFERRED TO THANE MUNICIPAL CORPORA TION FOR REHABILITATION OF PROJECT AFFECTED PEOPLE. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE A.O. BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE AFORESAID ADDITION. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SINCE THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE I S TOWARDS TRANSFER OF LAND, THE GAINS IF ANY OUGHT TO BE ASSESSED AS CAPI TAL GAINS AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. GROUND II: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 10(20) OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO A LLOW THE APPELLANT EXEMPTION U/S 10(20) OF THE ACT. GROUND III: THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD TO, ALTER, AMEND AND / OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONA L GROUND IN ALL THE APPEALS: WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I & II: GROUND III: ASSESSEE IS AN AGENT OF THE STATE GOVE RNMENT AND THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM TAX 1. THE ASSESSEE IS APPOINTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS O F MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT, 1966 AND THEREFORE IS AN AGE NT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. HENCE ASSESSEE IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE BE HELD AS AN AGENT OF THE STATE ITA NOS.5576 & 5580/M/2007 & OTHERS M/S. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY (MMRDA) 13 GOVERNMENT AND THEREFORE IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. GROUND IV: THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER AND / O R AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 10. THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEALS ARE THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENT IONS AND WILL BE RELEVANT ONLY IF THE ISSUE OF DENIAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 1 1 OF THE ACT WOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT SIMILAR GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL BEARING ITA NO. 5062/MUM/2009 RELATING TO AY 2006-07 HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BEIN G RENDERED ACADEMIC IN NATURE. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 16. BRIEFLY STATED, AO WHILE DENYING THE BENEFIT O F SECTION 11 TO ASSESSEE HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT A LOCAL AUTHORITY AND FURTHER ALSO HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR THE AMOUNT OF Z124.24 CRORES OF I NTEREST ON LOANS GIVEN AND DEPOSITS MADE WITH VARIOUS PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERT AKINGS/ GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF A SSESSEE, THE CIT (A) CONSIDERED THAT AS ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTI ON OF INCOME, THE GROUND OF BRINGING TO TAX NOTIONAL INTEREST BECOMES INFRUCTUO US. HOWEVER, HE ON THE ISSUE OF ASSESSEE BEING LOCAL AUTHORITY, AFTER DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER, HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT A LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE O F 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, 28 3 ITR 97 (SC), U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. CIT, 286 ITR 350, CA LCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION - VS - CIT 219 ITR 515 (SC) A ND CIT VS. U.P. FOREST CORPORATION, 230 ITR 945 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN H ELD THAT INSTITUTIONS SET UP FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSES, DOES NOT AMOUNT T O 'LOCAL AUTHORITY' FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 10(20) OF THE I.T. ACT. 17. IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS THE LEARNED COUNSEL SQUARELY ADMITTED THAT THESE ISSUES BECAME ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND CAN BE LEFT OPEN FOR ADJUDICATION AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME IN VIEW OF THE GRANTING BENEFITS OF SECTION 11 TO ASSESSEE. HE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT IN CASE THE REVENUE APPEAL IS DISMISSED, THERE IS NO NEED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE. SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE REVENUE APPEA L AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) GRANTING BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 TO ASSES SEE, THIS ISSUE BECOMES ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND SO NOT ADJUDICATED. ISSUES A RE LEFT OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION IN AN APPROPRIATE CASE AS AND WHEN REQUIRED. THE GR OUNDS ARE, THEREFORE CONSIDERED REJECTED. 18. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY REVENU E AND ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS.5576 & 5580/M/2007 & OTHERS M/S. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY (MMRDA) 14 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THA T FOLLOWING THE SIMILAR LINE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE GROU NDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THEY BEING RENDERED ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND CAN BE L EFT OPEN FOR ADJUDICATION. SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTING BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 TO TH E ASSESSEE, THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE H ENCE, FOLLOWING THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH DECISION, ON THE SIMILAR LINE, THE S AME ARE NOT ADJUDICATED AT THIS STAGE AND ARE LEFT OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION IN AN APP ROPRIATE CASE AS AND WHEN REQUIRED. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THEREFOR E DISMISSED HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AS WE LL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.07.2016. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 13.07.2016. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.