S.J. Vazifdar, J.

1. This reference under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 arises out of Reference Application Nos.306 and 307 filed by the assessee in respect of a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29th March, 1996 in ITA Nos.6351/B/93 and 1717/B/94 pertaining to assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91.

(A) The Tribunal on the assessee's application drew up a statement of case and referred the following eight questions and an additional question for the year 1990–91 for the opinion of this Court:-

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion concerning clauses 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 20 and 24 of the Memorandum of Association of the assessee are not objects of general public utility and thereby do not fall within the meaning of section 11 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961?

(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the construction activity of World Trade Center, Centre 1 and IDBI Centre were activities of business?

(4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the establishing of the World Trade Center cannot be object of public utility so as to be covered by the provisions of section 11 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961?

(5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to Its conclusion that the activity of the assessee would also be hit by the provisions of section 11 (4A) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961?

(6) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the transaction was one of sale of lease-hold rights of use of space and not of leasing?

(7) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the primary basic rent and the parking rent were assessable as income from profits and gains of business or profession ?

(8) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the amount appropriated towards a sinking fund was part of the rent received by the assessee and was in the nature of revenue receipt?

Additional Question for A. Y. 1990 – 91.

(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing to adopt the standard rent fixed by the Municipal Authorities as the annual value instead of the actual rent realized by the assessee?"

(B). By an order dated 21st March, 2003, in circumstances we will state later, Questions 1 and 6 were reframed as follows:–

"Question No. 1:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant complied with the provisions of section 11 (Applicant of income, Accumulation), 11 (4A), 12 and 13 for the assessment year 1989-90 and 1990-91 and is therefore exempt from Tax?

Question No. 6: Whether on the facts and or the circumstances of the case, the applicant was right that only 1/60th of the advance can be assessed as its income for the year as the tribunal had rightly held it as transaction of lease and not of sale?"

2. The only questions that were pressed before us by Mr.Andhyarujina, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, were questions 1, 6, 7 and 8 and the additional question for the A.Y.1990-91.

3. By an order and judgment dated 15th March, 2001 (251 ITR 852), this Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for its decision on two points. We will refer to the judgment in some detail later. Pursuant thereto the Tribunal on 29th November, 2001 made a remand report. The Reference is, therefore, now heard finally.

4. The questions referred to this court require a reference to the facts in s