M.R. Shah, J.

1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and as such with respect to same assessee-Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "AUDA") and arising out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "ITAT") with respect to different assessment years, all these appeals are decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT passed in ITA No. 712/AHD/2013 for AY 2009-10, by which, learned ITAT has held that the activities of appellant-assessee cannot be said to be for "charitable purpose" within the definition of Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and therefore, not entitled to deduction claimed under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee has preferred the present Tax Appeal No. 423 of 2016 to consider the following questions of law.

"(1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that the activity of the appellant was in the nature of trade, commerce or business and hence it cannot be regarded as activity for charitable purpose in view of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?

(2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the claim of exemption of the appellant under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and assessing the income of the appellant under sections 28 to 44 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"

2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT passed in ITA No. 647/AHD/2014 for AY 2010-11, by which, learned ITAT has held that the activities of the appellant-assessee cannot be said to be for "charitable purpose" within the definition of Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and therefore, not entitled to deduction claimed under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee has preferred the present Tax Appeal No. 424 of 2016 to consider the following question of law.

"(1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that the activity of the appellant was in the nature of trade, commerce or business and hence it cannot be regarded as activity for charitable purpose in view of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?

(2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the claim of exemption of the appellant under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and assessing the income of the appellant under sections 28 to 44 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"

2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT passed in ITA No. 2335/AHD/2015 for AY 2011-12, by which, learned ITAT has held that the activities of appellant-assessee cannot be said to be for "charitable purpose" within the definition of Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and therefore, not entitled to deduction claimed under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee has preferred the present Tax Appeal No. 425 of 2016 to consider the following question of law.

"(1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that the activity of the appellant was in the nature of trade, commerce or business and hence it cannot be regarded as activity for charitable purpose in view of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?

(2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the claim of exemption of the appellant under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and assessing the income of the appellant under sections 28 to 44 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"

3. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under;

3.1. That the assessee AUDA is constituted as Urban Development Authority, constituted by the State Government