Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemption -1(1)) and Others

Decided On : Oct-29-2014

Court : Mumbai

LAW: the Income Tax Act, the MMRDA Act, Section 40, Section 11, Section 11, The Appeal for Assessment Year, Section 11, Section 11, Section 11, the MRTP Act, Section 11, Section 11, Section 11, Section 11, Section 11, Article 289 of the Constitution of India, Article 289 of the Constitution before the Assessing Officer, Section 11

PERSON: M.S. Sanklecha, Bandra Kurla Complex', Petitioner, Petitioner, Petitioner, Petitioner, W. P., Petitioner, Rs.2316 Crores for, Petitioner, Petitioner, Petitioner, S. E. Dastur, Suresh Kumar, Petitioner, Kurla Complex, Rs.196.53 Crores, Crores, W. P. (, Petitioner

CARDINAL: 2, 3., 4., 5, 138, 381, 2158, 6., 8, 9, 2158, 10, 11, 158, 12, 345, 71, fourteen, one, 13, 14, 2010­-11, 5, 15, One, 16, 17

DATE: 2nd June, 2014, 18th August, 2014, 1961, 28th February 2014, Assessment Year 2011­-12, 1974, 7th March, 1977, Years 2003-­04, 2009, Assessment Year 2006-­07, 2009, 1st April, 2009, Assessment Year 2009, 2013, 18th November 2013, 2013, 28th February 2013, the Assessment Year 2011­-12, the earlier Assessment Years, 28th February 2014, Assessment year 2011­-12, 28 February 2014, 4th June, 2014, 28th February, 2014, 19th June, 2014, 18th August 2014, November, 2013, the Assessment Year 2010-­11, 13th November, 2013, 2013, the earlier Assessment Year, today, 2014, 2013, 6th March 2013, the preceding previous years, 2nd June 2014, 2013, 4 April 2014, 18 August, 2014, 7th March, 1977, 18 August 2014, 18 August 2014, 2013, 18 November 2013, 11 March 2013, years, 21 November 2013, 18 November 2013, 2013, earlier Assessment Years, the Assessment Year 2011­-12, 28th February, 2014

ORG: Income Tax, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, CIDCO, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(Tribunal, Tribunal, Finance, Assessing, State, Tribunal, CIDCO, Court, Tribunal, CIDCO, Assessment Proceedings, the State Government, Tribunal, CIDCO, CIDCO, Assessing, Assessing, CIDCO, Court, Tribunal, State, Tribunal, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Court, KEC International Limited v/s. B. R. Balakrishnan 251, ITR, UTI Mutual Funds v/s. ITO 345 ITR, UTI Mutual Fund v/s. ITO, Natural Justice, Authority, Assessing, Court, UTI Mutual Fund v/s. ITO, Assessing, UTI Mutual Funds, Court, Tribunal, CIDCO, the State Government, a Planning Authority by Notification, inter alia, Order, the State Government, State, Court, W.P., Tribunal, Court, Court, the Government of the Maharashtra, CIDCO, State, Tribunal, Court, UTI Mutual Fund v/s. ITO 345 ITR 71, Appeal

EVENT: Assessment Year 2003-­04, the Assessment Year 2010­11

MONEY: No.2) Act

GPE: W. P., W., W. P.(L, W. P.(L, A.Y.

PERCENT: 25%, 25%, 25%, 25%, 25%, almost about 23%, 25%

ORDINAL: 18th, first, first, second

FAC: the Assessment Proceedings

PRODUCT: Assessment