Itxa/6694/2010 Of The Director Of Income Tax-Exem, Mumbai v. Mandpeshwar Civic Federation, Mumbai

itxa6694-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6694 OF 2010 The Director of Income Tax-Exem. ..Appellant. V/s. Mandpeshwar Civic Federation ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr. Pramod Kumar Parida with Ms. Sanjukta Chowdhary i/b. PKP Legal Solutions for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.DATED : 9TH OCTOBER, 2012 P.C. :- 1.The following three reframed questions of law are raised by the revenue in this appeal:- (1)Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessee once granted registration U/s.12A of the Income Tax Act, assessing officer cannot deny the exemption even though the assessee institution is held to be a mutual concerned by AO & CIT (A) ?law, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessee once granted registration U/s.12A of the Income Tax Act, assessing officer cannot deny the exemption even though the assessee institution is held to be a mutual concerned by AO & CIT (A) ? (2)Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in allowing the deduction U/s.11 of the Act to the assessee even the AO & CIT(A) held that the assessee law, the ITAT is correct in allowing the deduction U/s.11 of the Act to the assessee even the AO & CIT(A) held that the assessee itxa6694-10 mutual concerned ? (3)Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in holding the reopening of assessment of AY 1999-2000 is bad in law ? 2.As regards the first question is concerned, similar question raised by the revenue in the assessee's own case being Income Tax Appeal No.6680 of 2010 & other matters has been dismissed by us today i.e. 9[th] October, 2012 on merits. In this view of the matter, the first question cannot be entertained.recorded 3.In view of the first question being answered against the revenue on merits, the second and third questions become academic. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)