TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, dated 16.02.2023 for Assessment Year 2018-19. iii) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055488789(1), dated 28.08.2023 passed against the assessment order by DCIT Exem. Circle 2, Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 23.12.2019 for Assessment Year 2017-18 iv) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055539505(1), dated 29.08.2023 passed against the assessment order by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 06.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Out of the four appeals, there appeals, i.e., ITA No. 3791, 3794 and 3795/Mum/2023 have identical grounds except for one additional issue in respect of transferable development rights (TDRs) raised in ground number 4 for Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19. The fourth appeal in ITA No. 3936/Mum/2023 for Assessment Year 2018-19 will have a direct bearing from the outcome of appeal in ITA No. 3791/Mum/2023 since it is against order u/s 154. We take up appeal for AY 2016-17 as the lead case and observations and findings for this shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other two appeals for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. Grounds raised by the Revenue in appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 are reproduced as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax Officer - 52 1TR 524, further Section 3 of the MMRDA Act and Section 126 of the MRTP Act also states that the land is vested in the authority and, therefore, the authority cannot be an agent of this State? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessee is not a valid Trust in terms of section 11 to 13 of the Act, and its activities are not charitable in nature and the proviso to section 2(15) is applicable in the facts of the present case? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in allowing the appeal on the issue of addition on account of interest, on account basis, on deposits kept with the public section undertaking and government of Maharashtra, even though in view of section 5 of Income - tax Act, 1961 the income is chargeable to tax on accrual basis? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue of expenditure on merits in a situation where deduction u/s 11 is not allowed? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of Skywalks. 2.3. The aforesaid projects are for the benefit of the general public or for advancement of general public utility and falls within the ambit of "charitable purpose' as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. Further, the activities conducted by assessee constitute "general public utility" which is covered as "charitable purpose". Assessee has utilized the income for the purpose of the general public utility, i.e., charitable purpose as per provisions of the Act. Assessee has also furnished Form No. 10B along with the return of income. Ld. Assessing Officer has not pointed out many anomalies in the application of funds by the assessee for non-charitable purposes, being not in accordance with the objects for which the assessee was set up under a special statute. 2.4. Ld. Assessing Officer after relying on the assessment order for AY 2010-11, denied exemption u/s. 11 by stating that assessee is not a valid trust. Ld. Assessing Officer by resorting to proviso to Section 2(15), denied exemption u/s. 11 claimed by the assessee. 3. The issue arising for consideration before the Tribunal is whether the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act disentitles the Assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss or otherwise of their conclusion or of any factual malafides but with the fact that the officers, in reaching in their conclusion,by-passed two appellate orders in regard to the same issue which were placed before them,one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other of the Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightly criticised this conduct of the Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate heirarchy. It cannot be too vehemently emphasised that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities; The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....institution is not genuine. We could not lay our hand on any material in the order of DIT(E) which explains that the assessee or its affairs are not being carry out in accordance with the object of the institution. Accordingly, we quash the order of DIT(E) and restore the registration of the Institution. This issue of assessee's appeal is allowed. 9. Since, the registration is already allowed consequently no disallowance can be made in respect to interest income and leasing activity income i.e. the rent and other fees, because these falls under the objects of the assessee's institution and hence on merits also the assessee has a case. Accordingly, we need not to elaborate on the merits of the case, since we have already allowed registration. 10. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed." [emphasis supplied by us by underline] 5.1. Based on the cancellation of registration of the assessee u/s. 12A, and during the pendency of the appeal before the Coordinate Bench, until the pronouncement of order on 05.04.2017, claim of exemption u/s.11 by the assessee was continuously denied. Assessee contested such denial in appeals before the Coordina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view, the issue of applicability of section 2(15) of the Act is already considered by the ITAT and issue is well settle in favour of the assessee. The courts have held the activities of the assessee are charitable and we observe that the activities of the assessee, which acts on behalf of the Government of Maharashtra, irrespective of nature of transactions, the assessee acts on behalf of and as an agent of the State Government. The development work and relevant activities in the line of development are carried by the assessee on behalf of the State Government and it is only an authority appointed under the MMRDA Act and MRTP Act to carry on the functions on behalf of State Government. All the revenues are belong to State Government and it is only an entity created to functions for the benefit of the common interest of people of the State." 7. In the order for Assessment Year 2003-04 to Assessment Year 2005-6, Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09, dated 13.07.2016 on the issue raised by assessee, it being an agent of the state and acting on behalf of the state, the Coordinate Bench left the issue open for consideration in an appropriate case as and when required, since the issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are left open for consideration in an appropriate case as and when required. The grounds are, therefore considered rejected. 18. In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue and Assessee are dismissed." 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that following the similar line, there is no need for adjudication of the grounds raised by the assessee as they being rendered academic in nature and can be left 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 the assessee, the issues raised by the assessee having become academic in nature hence, following the co-ordinate bench decision, on the similar line, the same are not adjudicated at this stage and are left open for consideration in an appropriate case as and when required. The appeals of the assessee are therefore dismissed having become infructuous." [emphasis supplied by us by underline] 8. In the present appeal, vide ground no. 2, Revenue is contesting that ld. CIT(A) is not justified in stating that the assessee acts on behalf of and as an agent of the State Government. On this issue, the obs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....favour of the assessee. Thus, following the order of the higher authorities the grounds of appeal IV & V are allowed." [emphasis supplied by us by underline] 9. Before the ld. Assessing Officer, on this issue of assessee being an agent of the State and acting on behalf of the State, assessee had made an elaborate submission by referring to the provisions of MMRDA Act and Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The submissions made before the ld. Assessing Officer and as reproduced in the impugned assessment order are extracted below: "X) As per the MRTP Act, while acting as SPA, the assessee is acting as an agent of the Government. The assessee is established to carry out legal obligations as specified in various provisions of the MMRDA Act and MRTP Act. In this regard, attention is invited to section 40(1)(b)/(c) of the MRTP Act which reads as under: "Sec 40(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette for any undeveloped area specified in the notification in this Act referred to as "the notified area" either:- (a)................................................................................
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2) If in, or his connection with, the exercise of its powers and discharge of its functions by the Regional Board, Planning Authority or Development Authority, under this Act, any dispute arises between the Regional Board, Planning Authority, and the State Government, the decision of the State Government on such dispute shall be final. Upon reading sub-sections (1) and (2), it is abundantly clear that the assessee, who is a Planning Authority / Development Authority, is an agent of the State Government. Lastly, attention is invited to the provisions of section 160 of the MRTP Act which provides that at the time of de-notification / dissolving a Development Authority /Planning Authority, from such date: (i) all properties, funds and dues which are vested in, or realisable by the Regional Board, Special Planning Authority or Development Authority for the purposes of the Act shall vest in, or be realisable, by the State Government; (ii) all liabilities which are enforceable against the Regional Board, Special Planning Authority or Development Authority shall be enforceable against the State Government; and (iii) for the purpose of carry....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10.1. Ld. Counsel pointed out comparative analysis between the two SPAs, i.e., the assessee and CIDCO which forms part of the written submission. Apart from oral arguments, detailed written submission made by the assessee on this aspect is reproduced as under: "In the matter of: DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI V. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ("MMRDA" or "RESPONDENT" or "ASSESSEE") Sr. No. Assessment Year ITA No. 1 2016-17 3795/M/2023 2 2017-18 3794/M/2023 3 2018-19 3936/M/2023 4 2018-19 3791/M/2023 The captioned Department appeals were heard on May 13, 2024. The Assessee submitted that based on its own case ITAT order for earlier years namely AY 2010-11 to 2015-16 which was attached at Pg no. 1 to 77 of LPB and specifically considering the language of ground no. 3 taken by the Revenue, the Assessee is entitled to exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and accordingly Revenue's appeal be dismissed. In the course of the hearing, in so far as ground no. 2 of the department appeal, the AR had also argued that, without prejudice to the ground of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act, in so fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ucture within the territorial limits of BMC and execute the same. At the relevant time, the Assessee has undertaken the major projects as follows: ● Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP); ● Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project (MUIP) - Roads, Bridges, Flyovers; ● Mumbai Metro Rail (MMR); ● Mithi River Clean-up project; ● Solid Waste Management; ● Water Supply Resource; ● The Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (MTHL) Project; ● Mumbai Mono Rail Project; ● Development of the Bandra-Kurla Complex / Wadala Truck Terminal, etc. The aforesaid projects are undoubtedly for the benefit of the general public or for advancement of general public utility and would fall within the ambit of 'charitable purpose' as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. 5. The Respondent has been granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act which is still valid and subsisting, and it has claimed exemption u/s 11 at the time of filing the Return of Income. 6. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal in the Respondent's own case for the earlier ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal is justified in coming to the conclusion that the company was an agent of government and therefore not exigible to tax? 4 As regards first substantial question of law, in view of our findings to second question of law, this question will not survive." 12. The Jurisdictional High Court decided the appeal following its own decision in case of CIDCO [Order dated 11.12.2023 in Writ Petition No.1840 of 2023] and considering the assessee to be an agent of the state under the MRTP Act and thus, the question of adjudication with respect to claim under article 289 of the Constitution of India does not arise. 13. Insofar as CIDCO is concerned, it was incorporated as a corporation on 17.03.1970 with share capital, which was wholly and exclusively subscribed by the Government of Maharashtra, with the object of creation of new town of Navi Mumbai, New Aurangabad, New Nashik, New Nanded, Tarapur, Waluj Mahanagar, Oras, Vasai-Virar sub region, Nagpur and Mhaismal Projects. 14. The Government of Maharashtra vide Government Resolution ("GR") dated 18th March, 1970 pursuant to which CIDCO was established, states, inter-alia, as under: "After careful ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as an 'Agent of the State Government'; and thereupon, such corporation or company shall, in relation to such area, be declared by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to be the New Town Development Authority for that area. 16. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3A) of section 113 of the MRTP, CIDCO was notified by the Government of Maharashtra vide its notification no. No. RPB 1171-18124-11-W dated March 20, 1971; to be a 'Town Development Authority' for the area comprised in the site of New Bombay. 17. It is also worthwhile to note that originally, CIDCO was appointed as a 'Special Planning Authority' for the notified areas of "Bandra Kurla Complex" ('BKC' as is commonly known) vide notification dated 18th July, 1973, however, after the establishment of the MMRDA, vide Notification dated 7th March 1977; CIDCO was replaced by the Respondent as a Special Planning Authority for the 'Bandra Kurla Complex Region' for the development of the BKC and accordingly the Respondent has merely replaced/substituted CIDCO and is now acting as an agent of the Government of Maharashtra. 18.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vernment. It has affirmed the ITAT, Mumbai's finding given in City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd v/s ACIT 10(3) (2012) 25 taxmann.com 333 (Mum.) that the assessee should be held to be an agent of the state, working solely under the authority and guidelines issued through various notifications by the State i.e. the Government of Maharashtra and that resolutions taking back to 1970 make it clear that the assessee is an agent and functions as an arm of the State Government because it can only work under the control and supervision of the State Government meaning thereby that it cannot make/take any decisions suo-motu. The Hon'ble High Court has also upheld the ITAT's ruling that the assessee receives income by way of remuneration at Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum which has to be assessed in the hands of the assessee after allowing deduction of expenses incurred for earning the said income. 1.1 The assessee has claimed in its written submission that its facts are similar to that of CIDCO as both the authorities are appointed under the powers conferred by the MRTP Act. It has also submitted a comparative chart of various similarities with CIDCO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uneration of the assessee from State Government was initiated at Rs 3 lakhs and capped at Rs 5 lakhs for all times to come. viii) It was specifically noted in the Schedule 27 of 36th Annual Report of the Government of Maharashtra that CIDCO was exempted from payment of Incometax under Article 289 of the Constitution of India. ix) As per clause 8 of the above report under the heading Loans and Advances, the note states that the project is executed on behalf of the State Government. The income is therefore payable to the Government and if there is a deficit it is recoverable from the Government. This proves that there is no commercial or profit motive attached to the functions of CIDCO. x) Section 113A of MRTP Act laid down that the State Government shall acquire and vest land in New Town Development Authority. Hence, CIDCO cannot show such land vested in it by the government as its own assets in the Balance Sheet xi) Vide Government Resolution no 10375 dated 06-08-2010, after the development project is complete, the project gets handed back to the state. xii) There is no income to CIDCO and whatever is generated, gets deposited to the Con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Maharashtra Legislative Assembly representing the notified area, one member representing the municipal area, if any, included in the notified area, the Deputy Director of Town Planning, and the Executive Engineer, Public Health Works Division, each having jurisdiction over the notified area, and an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Collector; or (aa) appoint the Authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, or (b) appoint any Development Authority declared under sub-section (3A) of section 113, or (c) appoint the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority establish under the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, to be the Special Planning Authority for developing the notified area." 5.2 It is seen from the above provisions that while CIDCO is the Development Authority declared u/s 113(3A) of the MRTP Act, the assessee is the Special Planning Authority declared u/s 40(1)(c) of the MRTP Act. It is pertinent to note that while the assessee is conceived as body corporate, local authority and Special Planning Authority, it has not been conferred upon the status of &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ● Section 17(4) of the Act empowers the assessee to charge toll for the use of any amenity provided by it. ● Section 46A of the Act chalks out the area of control of the State Government over the assessee. It states that the State Government will lay down the policy and guidelines and it may issue directions from time to time for the assessee in the exercise of its powers and discharge of its duties. In the event of any dispute arising between the assessee and the State Government, the decision of the State Government will be final. 6.1 It is observed that none of the above functions of the assessee warrant prior sanction of the State Government. In fact, there is no stringent control by the State Government on the operations of the assessee. Its functions are autonomous and it is empowered to take decisions suo-motu. Hence, the assessee's claim that it is an agent which acts only at the behest of its principal i.e the State Government is not supported by any statutory provision. 7. On perusal of Chapter V of the MMRDA Act relating to Finance, Budget and Accounts of the assessee, it is seen that no agency remuneration is received by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ective from the date of dissolution of the Development Authority by the State Government u/s 160(1) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State Government is responsible as a principal for the acts of the assessee. No person can sue the State Government for any contractual liability of the assessee. The assessee is a separate legal entity which can sue and be sued in its own capacity. 12. In the light of the above facts and discussion, it is emphasised that CIDCO and MMRDA are designated as Special Planning Authority under different sections of the MRTP Act. There are crystal clear provisions in the various governing resolutions of CIDCO that establish principal-agent relationship and give complete control over its activities to the State Government. On the other hand, the assessee has not been able to show that it meets the necessary functional tests such as statutory status of agent of the State, working as agent of the State, deep and pervasive control by the State, sole dependence on financial assistance by the State and State protection from all legal action. Submitted for kind perusal and consideration of the Hon'ble Bench." 10.3. As a rej....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....24, the Assessee was directed by the Hon'ble Tribunal to file comparative analysis between MMRDA and CIDCO. The said written submission was filed by the Authorized Representatives ("ARs") of the Assessee on May 21, 2024. In rejoinder to the said submission, the Ld. Department Representative ("Ld. DR") tendered a copy of her submission during the course of hearing held on July 5, 2024. In this connection said rejoinder filed by the Ld. DR, the Assessee submits as under. The whole crux of the Ld. DR's rejoinder having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd v. ACIT [2012] 138 ITD 381, affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (ITA No. 1394 of 2013) dated April 19, 2024, is that basis certain peculiarities demonstrated before the appellate authorities to CIDCO's status has been accepted be an agent of State Government of Maharashtra, and as a consequence of which it's income has been held to be not taxable. It is stated in the said rejoinder, that the Assessee has not pointed out identical provisions proving agency and therefore ratio of CIDCO (supra) c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the duties of the Authority under this Act, any dispute arises between the Authority and the State Government, the matter shall be decided by the State Government and its decision shall be final." Although Ld. DR has pointed out various sections of MMRDA Act to allege that the Assessee functions with autonomy, the provisions of section 46A stated above have been completely ignored. Since the provisions of section 46A provides for "Control by the State Government", the other sections referred by the Ld. DR cannot be read independently so as to argue that the Assessee functions with the autonomy. In so far as theory of agent of State Government is concerned, it is reiterated that the Assessee and CIDCO are at par in light of following provisions of the MRTP Act, 1966 copy of MRTP Act is enclosed herewith at Pg 28 to 157 The appointment of MMRDA/CIDCO as 'Special Planning Authority' ("SPA") is under section 40 of the MRTP Act, which reads as under. (Specimen Government Resolutions appointing the Assessee as SPA are enclosed herewith at Pg. 168 to 190.) "(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette for any undeveloped area spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions of section 44 of the MMRDA Act, whereby any arears receivable by MMRDA can be recovered as "arears of land revenue". As defined under section 2(19) of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, the term 'land revenue' has been defined as under. "(19) " land revenue" means all sums and payments, in money received or legally claimable by or on behalf of the State Government from any person on account of any land or interest in or right exercisable over land held by or vested in him, under whatever designation such sum may be payable and any cess or rate authorised by the State Government under the provisions of any law for the time being in force; and includes, premium, rent, lease money, quit rent, judi payable by a namdar or any other payment provided under any Act, rule, contract or deed on account of any land; This further supports the contention of the Assessee that it is an agent of the State Government. The Assessee reiterates that, considering the above facts read with provisions of the MRTP Act, the Assessee being designated as an SPA for certain areas of the MMR, and following the binding precedents in the case of CIDCO, the receipts arising....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). 2 On 8" July 2015 the appeal was admitted and the following two substantial questions of law were framed: (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases and in law, the Tribunal was right in its interpretation of Articles 289(1)(2)(3) of the Constitution in coming to the conclusion that the company was not exigible to tax? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases and in law, the Tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that the company was an agent of government and therefore not exigible to tax? 3 As regards second question of law challenging the Tribunal's finding that assessee/respondent was an agent of Government and, therefore, not exigible to tax has been considered and decided in a recent order of this Court in the matter of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors.. This Court has come to a categorical finding that petitioner is declared as an agent of the State Government and that status cannot be whittled down. This Court has also referre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be "an agent" of the State or an "arm" of the State, working solely under the authority and guidelines issued through various notifications by the State, i.e., the Government of Maharashtra has come to a finding that the resolutions taking back to 1970 make it clear that Petitioner is an agent and functions as an arm of the State Government because Petitioner can only work under the control and supervision of the State Government meaning thereby Petitioner cannot make/take any decisions suo-motu. 11. The ITAT has also held Petitioner to be an agent of the State. The ITAT has also recorded that it was aware that there is an income to Petitioner by way of remuneration received from the State Government at Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum, which has to be assessed in the hands of Petitioner. The ITAT set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and directed the Assessing Officer to decide the case on merits with regard to income of Rs. 5,00,000/- received by Petitioner after allowing deduction for any expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the said income. In view thereof, this substantial question of law is answered in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....graphs for ready reference, especially internal para 10 which records that "petitioner can only work under the control and supervision of the State Government meaning thereby Petitioner cannot make/take any decision suo moto." 11.4. Subsequently, another matter came up before the Coordinate Bench in the case of CIDCO for Assessment Year 2014-15 vide appeal in ITA No. 2840/Mum/2019, order dated 16.10.2019 on the issue relating to revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act since its income was exigible to income-tax owing to omission of section 10(20A) of the Act and that assessee is not an agent of the Government. CIDCO contested that assessment completed u/s 143(3) was by following the binding decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court as well as the jurisdictional Tribunal in its own case (supra). Amongst various contentions raised by the ld. Counsel, it was also asserted that it can be treated as agent as per the MRTP Act and not necessary to be treated as agent also in the case of Income-tax Act. Decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in MIDC (supra) was referred wherein the ITAT decision of CIDCO was held to be per incuriam. Judgment in MIDC was distinguished....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oping and disposing of land in the area of a new town to be done by any such corporation, company or subsidiary company aforesaid, as an agent of the state government; and thereupon, such corporation or company shall, in relation to such area, be declared by the state government, by notification in the official gazette, to be the New Town Development Authority for that area." MIDC is a corporation which would fall under sub-section 113(3A) whereas the Development Authority falls under section 113(2) of MRTP Act. The circular issued with reference to MIDC is therefore of no assistance to contend that land leased by the Development Authority to appellant is a government land. The contention of appellant that the Development Authority is the agent of state government and that the appellant is a government lessee are therefore rejected. 11.5. In the above decision, the Coordinate Bench then concluded dismissing the revisionary order passed u/s 263. While concluding, specific reference was made to the decision of Hon'ble High of Bombay in civil appeal whereby it was held as an agent of the State as per section 113(3A) of the MRTP Act. The relevant para is extracted below....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction being held by ballot according to the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote; (ix) and (x) two members of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, representing constituencies falling, wholly or partly, within the limits of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, to be nominated by the State Government; (xi) one member of the Maharashtra Legislative Council, to be nominated by the State Government; (xii) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra; (xiii) The Municipal Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of' (Brihan Mumbai) ; (xiv) The Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department; (xv) The Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Housing Department; (xvi) The Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra; (xvii) The Metropolitan Commissioner. (2) The Minister for Urban Development shall be the Chairman, and the Metropolitan Commissioner shall be the Member-Secretary, of the Authority. 12.1. Similar is the reflection from the composition of Executive Committee of the assessee composed u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provides that assessee shall carry out directions and instructions from time to time from the State Government for efficient administration of the Act and in the event of any dispute, the decision of State Government shall be final. Provisions of section 46A of the MMRDA Act and that of section 154 of the MRTP Act are in coherence, emphasising on control by the State Government qua functioning of a SPA. 12.4. We have also taken note of the fact that assessee is required to handover the completed amenities to the concerned statutory authorities. It is also important to take note of provisions contained in section 113(3A) of the MRTP Act, where by the State Government may, for carrying out the work of developing and disposing of land in the area of new town may require the same to be done by such authority as an agent of the State Government, which the State Government shall declare by notification in the official gazette. The said section is already reproduced in the above paragraphs in the submissions made by the two parties. List of certain notifications in this respect issued by the State Government is tabulated below: Sr. No. Notification No. Dated Area 1. B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accounts of the assessee. The learned Counsel stated that he has completely gone into the wrong facts and held that the assessee has not recorded the income from lease rentals in the current year. It was argued that the assessee received lease premium from various other properties like Kalyan Complex, Oshiwara District Centre, Wadala Truck Terminus, etc. and these premium are payable to Govt. of Maharashtra and the same are recorded under the head current liabilities and provisions. It was contended that treatment of premium received is the same as given to the lease premium received from Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC). When these facts were confronted to the learned CIT Departmental Representative, he could not controvert the above factual position and the consolidated balance sheet produced before us. 12. We have gone through the facts in entirety and noted that these lease premium liability declared in the balance sheet which is payable to Govt. of Maharashtra is actually received from various persons against properties and it cannot be held as income of the assessee. Actually this is a liability payable to Maharashtra Govt. Hence, we concur with the findings of CIT(A) and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant submitted that it has claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act since the activities of the Appellant are charitable in nature. The Ld. AO after relying on the assessment order for AY 2010-11 denied exemption of section 11 by stating that the Appellant Trust is not a valid trust and also stated that the change of status from Local Authority to Trust is not permissible. The appellant has relied on various case laws in support of his claim after giving detailed reasoning for the same. It further vide it's reply dated 31.07.23 submitted that Hon'ble Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal in the Appellant's own case for the earlier assessment years namely 2010-11 to 2015-16, bearing ITA No.s 4391, 4392, 4393, 4394 & 4395/MUM/2019 and ITA Nos. 34 & 35/MUM/2020, order dated 03.01.2022-at para no 23 to 26 at page no. 55 to 72 has adjudicated this issue in detail, relevant part of the same is reproduced as below:- 22. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that the assessee is still registered u/s 12AA of the Act and it is not revoked. Further the assessee is established under the MMRDA Act, 1974. As per which the assessee is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the Act includes what has been specified therein and interalia the advancement of any other object of general public utility. The proviso was brought in by the legislature for the reason that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves carrying of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application or retention, of the income from such activity. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Jammu Development Authority vs. Union of India and another in ITA NO. 164/2012 dated 07-11-2013. Even otherwise, on the aspect of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association vs. The Director Of Income Tax (2013) in 343 ITR 300 has decided this issue after elaborate discussion in regard to cancellation of 2 registration granted u/s 12A of the Act by observing as under: - 22. We had already extrac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the phrase "advancement of any other object of general public utility, number of entities zoperating on commercial lines claimed exemption on their Income either under Section 20/23c) or under Section 11 of the Act. Thus, to limit the scope of this expression, Section was amended in the year 2008 that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if the object involved the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade. commerce of business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity. Though the section as it stood prior to the substilution in 2008 contained no provision as in the provise under the 2008 amendment, yet the Supreme Court held that that if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust er institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity: vide CIT v. And....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the stated circumstances, reads as under Provision inserted under Finance Act, 2004 Section 12AA(3)- Where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under clause (0) of sub section (1) and subsequently the Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such trust or institution ar not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or institution, as the case may be, he shall pass an order in writing cancelling the registration of such trust or institution. Provided that order under this sub-section shall be passed unless such trust or institution has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 31. After amendment in the year 2010. Section 1243) of the INCOME TAX DEPARTMEN Act reads as follows: "Section 12AA(3)-Where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of sub section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996) and subsequently the Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll apply to exempt these income from liability. These are matters of assessment and has nothing to do with the genuineness of the activity or the activities not in conformity with the objects of the trust. As rightly pointed out by learned Senior counsel appearing for the assessee, as is evident from the reading of Circular No.11 of 2008 dated 19.12.2008, the object of the insertion of first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act was only to curtail institution, which under the garb of 'general public utility', carry on business or commercial activity only to escape the liability under the Act thereby gain unmerited exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 36. In the decision reported in (2012) 343 ITR 23 (Bom) (Sinhagad Technical Education Society V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune &Anr), the Bombay High Court held as follows: "As a result of the amendment, which has been brought about by the Finance Act of 2010, Subsection (3) of Section 12AA has been amended specifically to empower the Commissioner to cancel a registration obtained under Section 12A as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996. SubSection (3) was inserted int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner may also make such enquiry as he may deem necessary in that behalf. In the event the Commissioner satisfies himself that the trust is entitled to registration keeping in mind the objects, th grant registration in writing in terms of Section 12AA(1)(b)(0) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the event the Commissioner is not satisfied, he shall refuse such registration in terms 12AA(1)b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Once such a of Section satisfaction is arrived at by the Commissioner to grant, such registration cannot be cancelled by following the very same provision of section 12AA(B)(0) of the Income Tax Act, 1901 to go into the genuineness of the activities of the trust. However, the Commissioner is empowered to revoke the certificate in terms of Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As Commissioner is empowered to revoke the certificate in terms of section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per the said provision, in the event the Commissioner is satisfied subsequently i.e., after registration that the activities of such trust or institution are not genuine or not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust of the institution as the case m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench-A rendered in the case of Gujarat Cricket Association Vs. DIT (Exemption) in ITA.No.93(Ahd)/2011 dated 31.01.2012 and that of the Nagpur Bench rendered in the case of M/s. Vidarbha Cricket Association Vs. Income-tax-1, Nagpur in ITA.No.3/Nag/10 dated 30.05.2011, Commissioner of considered the said decision reported in 343 ITR 300 in the case of CIT Vs. Sarvodayallakkiya Pannai rendered under Section 12AA(3) of the Act. On appeal before the respective High Courts, the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was confirmed. 43. Leaving that aside, there being no dispute raised by the Revenue as to the genuineness of the trust, or as to the activities of the trust not being in accordance with the objects of the trust, the question of cancellation under Section 12AA of the Act does not arise. We further hold that at the time of grant of registration on 28.3.2003, the same was made taking into consideration the objects of the institution fitting in with the definition of 'charitable purpose' defined under Section 2(150 of the Act and the substitution of the Section itself came only 2008, with effect from 01.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. Even therein, Courts have defined as to when an institution could be held as one for advancement of any other object of general public utility. Thus, if a particular activity of the institution appeared to be commercial in character, and it is not dominant, then it is for the Assessing Officer to consider the effect of Section 11 of the Act in the matter of granting exemption on particular head of receipt. The mere fact that the said income does not fit in with Section 11 of the Act would not, by itself, herein lead to the conclusion that the registration granted under Section 12AA is bad and hence, to be cancelled. 46. It may be of relevance to note the language used in the definition "charitable purpose" in Section 2(15) of the Act, which states that charitable purpose includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and advancement of any other object of general public utility. The assessee's case falls within the phrase of the definition general public utility. In the decision reported in (2000) 246 ITR 188 in the case of Hiralal Bhagwati Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Gujarat High court considered the said phrase in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein. Admittedly when the assessee was granted registration, the Revenue recorded its satisfaction that the objects are of charitable purpose. Thus only possible enquiry under Section 12AA of the Act for cancellation is to find out whether the activities of the trust are genuine or in accordance with the objects of the trust. If any of the income arising on the activities are not in accordance with the objects of the trust, the assessees income, at best, may not get the exemption under Section 11 of the Act. But this, by itself, does not result in straight rejection of the registration as "trust' under Section 12AA of the Act. Consequently, we reject the prayer of the Revenue that Section 12AA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be read along with Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before considering the cancellation. 49. As far as the unreported decision of this Court in T.C(A) No.91 of 2013 dated 29.04.2013 (Gowri Ashram Vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) is concerned, on which heavy reliance was placed by the Revenue, the said decision relates to the rejection of the registration at the threshold of the application filed for registration. So too the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rendered by the assessee for conducting the matches, the ground where the matches are played are given for rent which is a commercial venture. The subsidy received from BCCI included mainly TV Advertisements sold by BCCI for the conduct of IPL and their commercial receipts arising for IPL transactions. Therefore, the nature of receipt was important than the name of account under which it was accounted. Thus he viewed that the objects and activities would no longer come within the definition of Section 2(15) of the Act after the amendment come in effect from 01.04.2009. 52. As rightly pointed out by the assessee, the Revenue does not question the objects of the Association as not genuine or are in accordance with the objects. All that the Revenue stated was that the nature of re could not be called a subsidy. Thus Revenue came to the conclusion that the objects and activities could not come within the meaning of 'charitable purpose under Section 2(15) of the Act. 53. On going through the materials, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal pointed out that instead of promoting and developing the game of cricket, the assessee was promoting and developing cricket as an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gone through the order of DIT(E) and could not find anything in the order which terms that the nssessee was undertaking any activity which is not genuine or trust or institution is not genuine. We could not lay our hand on any material in the order of DIT(E) which explains that the assessee or its affairs are not being carry out in accordance with the object of the institution. Accordingly, we quash the order of DIT(E) and restore the registration of the Institution. This issue of assessee's appeal is allowed. 9. Since, the registration is already allowed consequently no disallowance can be made in respect to interest income and leasing activity income i.e. the rent and other fees, because these falls under the objects of the assessee's institution and hence on merits also the assessee has a case. Accordingly, we need not to elaborate on the merits of the case, since we have already allowed registration." 25. Therefore, from the above decision of the coordinate bench, the assessee is continue to be duly registered as charitable trust u/s 12AA, this is due to subsequent development, hence the contention of the Ld.CIT(A) and Assessing Officer is not correct.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee that the assessee is created for the Charitable purpose within the meaning of Section 11 and 2(15) of the Act. Thus, following the order of the higher authorities the grounds of appeal I & II are allowed. 16.1. The issue relating to proviso to section 2(15) in the case of assessees including statutory corporations, authorities or bodies carrying out object of General Public Utility has been dealt by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 449 ITR 1 (SC). In this respect, certain paragraphs from the said judgement are reproduced for the sake of ready reference: "170. Classically, the idea of charity was tied up with eleemosynary. However, "charitable purpose" and charity as defined in the Act have a wider meaning where it is the object of the institution which is in focus. Thus, the idea of providing services or goods at no consideration, cost or nominal consideration is not confined to the provision of services or goods without charging anything or charging a token or nominal amount. This is spelt out in ballon Chamber of Commerce (supra) where this Court held that certain GPUs can render services to the public w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nificant amounts from those who can afford to pay, by providing extra services, far above the cost-plus nominal markup) such activities are in the nature of trade, commerce, business or service in relation to them. In such case, the receipts from such latter kind of activities where higher amounts are charged, should not exceed the limit indicated by proviso (ii) to section 2(15). ... ... 176. It would be essential now to deal with certain kinds of receipts which GPU charities, typically statutory housing boards, regulatory authorities and corporations may be entitled to, if mandated to collect or receive. During the course of hearing, learned counsels highlighted that statutory boards, and corporations have to recover the cost of providing essential goods and services in public interest, and also fund large scale development and maintain public property. These would entail recovering charges or fees, interest and also receiving interest for holding deposits. It was further pointed out that in some cases, income in the form of rents - having regard to the nature of the schemes which the concerned board, trust or corporation may be mandated or permitted to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of transfer of land, or borrowing of moneys or receipt of rents and profits will by themselves neither be the indicia nor the decisive attributes of the trading character of the Corporation. Ordinarily, a Corporation is established by shareholders with their capital. The shareholders have their Directors for the regulation and management of the Corporation Such a Corporation set up by the shareholders carries on business and is intended for making profits. When profits are earned by such a Corporation they are distributed to shareholders by way of dividends or kept in reserve funds. In the present case, these attributes of a trading Corporation are absent. The Corporation is established by the Act for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The purposes of the Act are development of industries in the State. The Corporation consists of nominees of the State Government, State Electricity Board and the Housing Board. The functions and powers of the Corporation indicate that the Corporation is acting as a wing of the State Government in establishing industrial estates and developing industrial areas, acquiring property for those purposes, constructing buildings, allotting buildings, fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of industries by letting buildings on hire or sale, the acquisition and transfer of land in relation to establishment of industrial estate or development of industrial areas and of setting up of industries cannot be said to be dealing in land or buildings for the obvious reason that the State is carrying out the objects of the Act with the Corporation as an agent in setting up industries in the State. The Act aims at building an industrial town and the Corporation carries out the objects of the Act. The hard core of a trading Corporation is its commercial character. Commerce connotes transactions of purchase and sale of commodities, dealing in goods. The forms of business transactions may be varied but the real character is buying and selling. The true character of the Corporation in the present case is to act as an architectural agent of the development and growth of industrial towns by establishing and developing industrial estates and industrial areas. We are of opinion that the Corporation is not a trading one." ... ... 190. In light of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that: (i) The fact that bodies which carry on statutory....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ixation of rates on pre-determined statutory basis, or based on formulae regulated by law, or rules having the force of law, setting apart amenities for the purposes of development, charging fixed rates towards supply of water, providing sewage services, providing food-grains, medicines, and/or retaining monies in deposits or government securities and drawing interest there from or charging lease rent, ground rent, etc., per se, recovery of such charges, fee, interest, etc. cannot be characterized as "fee, cess or other consideration" for engaging in activities in the nature of trade, commerce, or business, or for providing service in relation in relation thereto; (e) Does the statute or controlling instrument set out the policy or scheme, for how the goods and services are to be distributed; in what proportion the surpluses, or profits, can be permissively garnered; are there are limits within which plots, rates or costs are to be worked out; whether the function in which the body is engaged in, is normally something a government or state is expected to engage in, having regard to provisions of the Constitution and the enacted laws, and the observations of this court in N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are involved in 'development' and are not essentially engaged in trading. In the decision of Shri Ramtanu Cooperative Housing Society (supra), it was noted that "receipts of these moneys arise not out of any business or trade but out of sole purpose of establishment, growth and development of industries." It further noted in para 20 that "The hard core of a trading corporation is its commercial character. Commerce connotes transactions of purchase and sale of commodities, dealing in goods. The forms of business transactions may be varied but the real character is buying and selling. The true character of the Corporation in the present case is to act as an architectural agent of the development and growth of industrial towns by establishing and developing industrial estates and industrial areas. We are of opinion that the Corporation is not a trading one." In the present case, the factum of such buying and selling is not brought out by the Revenue to hold against the assessee. 16.3. In para 190, while drawing summary, the Hon'ble Court opinionated in sub-para (d) of para 190(iv) on determinative test for GPU category of charities to state that "where the controlling i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied in applying the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act for denying the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings arrived by ld. CIT(A) as adjudicated by him on the issue who has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case. Accordingly, ground no.3 and 5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 17. For ground no.4 on the treatment of lease premium, which ld. Assessing Officer has treated as income in the hands of the assessee, the issue is covered by the decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case, relied upon by the ld. CIT(A), holding in favour of the assessee and the same is reproduced as under: "7.2 The appellant in its Grounds of Appeal No. III assailed the AO for addition on account of lease premium of Rs. 1191,87,99,809/-. The Appellant submitted that the Ld. AO erred in making addition on account of Lease Premium of 1191,87,99,809/-on the alleged grounds that the same are income of the Appellant. The appellant has relied on various case laws in support of his claim after giving detailed reasoning for the same. It further vide it's reply dated 31.07.23 submitted that Hon&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case vide order dated 13.07.2016 for AY 2003-04 and others. Relevant findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A) following the decision of Coordinate Bench is extracted below: "7.4 The appellant in its Grounds of Appeal No. VI assailed the AO for addition on account of accrued interest Rs. 68,84,00,000/-. The assessee claimed that the Ld. AO erred in making notional addition on account of interest aggregating to Rs. 68,84,00,000/- on loans given and deposits made with various Public Sector Undertakings ("PSU") / GOM / Government Bodies. The appellant has relied on various case laws in support of his claim after giving detailed reasoning for the same. It further vide it's reply dated 31.07.23 submitted that Hon'ble Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal in the Appellant's own case for the earlier assessment years namely 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09 bearing ITA Nos. 5576 & 5580/M/2007, 4177/M/2008, 5761/M/2010 & 6756/M/2011, order dated 13.07.2016 at para no 10 &11 at page no. 13 &14 has adjudicated this issue in detail, the same is reproduced as below :- "10. The Ld. A.R of the assessee has stated that the iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submission of the appellant is examined. The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai has adjudicated the issue in favour of appellant's own case in earlier years and has allowed the grounds of appeal after detailed discussion, observing that since the issue relating to exemption u/s 11 of the Act holding that the appellant is a valid trust & eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act under proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, is settled in favour of the assesse, all other issues raised have become academic and directed the Assessing Officer to assess the income of the assessee as per their direction in the above order. Thus, following the order of the higher authorities the grounds of appeal VI are allowed as per direction of the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai. 18.1. From the perusal of the above, in the given facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings arrived by ld. CIT(A) and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 19. Ground No.7 and 8 raised by the Revenue are rendered academic in nature in view of the observations and findings given while adjudicating ground no.2. 20. In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17 is dismissed. Since identical....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Development Authority established under the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, to be the Special Planning Authority for developing the notified ares Page No. 7, Section 3(T) of the MMRDA Act: The State Government shall by notification in the Official Cuarte, establish, for the purposes of this Act en authority to be called "The Mumbel Metropolitan Region Development Authority" or "the Authority". Section 42(1)(b) raad with 113(34] of MRTP Art The State Government may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) ef 113, require the work of developing and disposing of land in the area of's new town to be done by any such-corporation, company of nitridiary company aforesaid, as an "Agent of the State Goverment', and thereupon, sach corporation or company shall, in relation to nach aren, be declared by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to be the New Town Development Authority for that area and accordingly by notification in the Official Gazette for any undeveloped area specified in the notification in this Act appoint any Development Authority as discussed above. The State Government issued Resolution (OR Ne. EDU/577/IN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the following sources. 1. CIDCO's website: sidco.malarashare.gov.in 2. Annual Report for Financial Year 2017-18 3. High court and tribunal orders in case of CIDCO COMPARATIVE CHART_MMRDA AND CIDCO Annesure A Document 2 MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY मà¥à¤‚बई महानगर पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¥‡à¤¶ विकास पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤§à¤¿à¤•à¤°à¤£ No. ED/MUTP/Handing Over/154/2015 Engineering Division Date: 24/04/2015 Sub .: Handing over of Skywalks, Flyovers and ROBs Ref .: i) Meeting held by Municipal Commissioner, MCGM on 17/10/2014 il) This office letter of even no. dated 21/01/2015. As per the meeting held between Municipal Commissioner, MCGM and Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA on 17.10.2014, it was decided to hand over the various skywalks, ROBs and flyovers as per the list enclosed as Annexure - 1 to MCGM. Accordingly, Santacruz-Chembur Link Road (3.5 Km.) from Mithi River Bridge at C.S.T. Road to Amar Mahal Junction on EEH as per the enclosed statements is hereby handed over on 'as is where is' basis to the Chief Engineer (Br....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub- section (1) ef section 40 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Manning Act, 1966 ( insertei by clause III of schedule : of Loxbay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974) (Mah.17 of 1978), and all other movers ona ** * * Document 4 in that behalf, the Government of Maharashtra hereby appoints the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority to be the Special Manning Authority for the area mentioned in schedule heretot- Schedule R.T.I. Ach, 2505 All that area bounded on - North- By Southern Boundary of are included in Town in Town Planning Sohence, Santacruz No. III And thereafter davaharlal Nehru Road upto its junction with Kalina Road thereafter, along Zalina Road upto its junction with Central' Salsette Track Road and thereafter, along the alignment of Central Salsette Track Road upto Western Boundery of Survey No.3 of Farichakhari, thereafter along kestara boundary of Survey Nos. 3 und of 2 of Farighakhari upto the Northern boundary of Survey No.2 of Farighakhari, thereafter along Northern and Eastern boundaries of Survey No.2 of Farighakhari upto Survey No. 220 of Fuld thereafter along Eastern bound....