TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larly drawn to similar / identical provisions in Authority Act, 1974 and the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 to point out the identical nature of the two entities. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in CIDCO (supra) was per incurim as the above decision of the Apex Court was not brought to its notice. Further, on facts, this case stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Aditya Industrial Area Development Authority (supra). Thus, the admission of the appeal in the case of CIDCO (supra) by this Court would not on facts of this case, warrant admission of this appeal. (e) Therefore, in face of the Supreme Court decision in Aditya Industrial Area Development Authority (supra) which concludes the issue in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right in holding that the activities of the appellant is hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act? 3. Regarding question no.(i) : (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal held that the appellant could not be considered as a part of the Government Department so as to be exempted from Income Tax. It held that Article 289 of the Constitution of India would not extend to the appellant. It placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Corporation Vs. ITO, 521 ITR 524 to come to the aforesaid conclusion. (b) Mr. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal challenges the above finding / conclusion of the Tribunal as being contrary to the decision of its coordinate bench in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra Industrial Development Act, 1961 to point out the identical nature of the two entities. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in CIDCO (supra) was per incurim as the above decision of the Apex Court was not brought to its notice. Further, on facts, this case stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Aditya Industrial Area Development Authority (supra). Thus, the admission of the appeal in the case of CIDCO (supra) by this Court would not on facts of this case, warrant admission of this appeal. (e) Therefore, in face of the Supreme Court decision in Aditya Industrial Area Development Authority (supra) which concludes the issue in the present facts, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
