IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2017-18 and 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of Mumbai Railway Vikas Income Tax (Exemptions)- Corporation Ltd., 2(1), 2^nd Floor, Churchgate Station Vs.

Mumbai Bldg., Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020 (PAN : AACCM1284B)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee : Shri Vipula Joshi, Advocate Revenue : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH:

These three appeals filed by the Revenue are against the orders of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065390276(1) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065390008(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065389822(1), dated 05.06.2024 passed against the assessment orders by NFAC, Delhi, dated 31.05.2021, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2018-19 and by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle -2, Mumbai, u/s. 143(3), dated 19.12.2019 and 30.11.2018 for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2016-17 respectively.

2. Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under:

ITA No.3817/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year 2018-19)

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the assessee, ignoring the fact that the objects of the assessee falls under the category of "advancement of any other object of general public utility" and the activities are clearly in the nature of providing services in relation to trade, business and commerce in lieu of fees and total receipts of the assessee from such activities which are more than 20% of total receipts, hence the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act is applicable and the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act in view of the provisions of section 13(8) of the I.T. Act, 1961?.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017 in various batch of appeal and SLP's [lead case ACIT (Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 143 taxmnn.com 278(SC)], the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that even if the activities of the assessee are held to be covered under residuary part of section 2(15) as “advancement of any other object of general public utility" even then it is not entitled to exemption u/s 11 because it is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) as the income of the assessee consists of activities which are in the nature of trade, commerce or business?

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing Rs. 31,22,049/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee has claimed Rs. 1,04,06,830/- as Professional / Consultancy fees / Fee for technical services in its return of income and that the assessee has failed to deduct TPS u/s 194J of the Act.

ITA No.3818/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year 2017-18)

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 &12 of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the assessee, ignoring the fact that the objects of the assessee falls under the category of "advancement of any other object of general public utility" and the activities are clearly in the nature of providing services in relation to trade, business and commerce in lieu of fees and total receipts of the assessee from such activities which are more than 20% of total receipts, hence the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act is applicable and the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act in view of the provisions of section

13(8) of the I.T. Act, 1961?.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the c