JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of these appeals under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the appellant-revenue has challenged the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue against the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 1997-98 to 2002-2003. 2. This court while admitting the appeals has framed the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding the assessee to be a 'local authority' and thereby allowing exemption under section 10(20) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is the Gujarat Maritime Board established under the Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981. The assessee claimed its income under section 10 (20) of the I.T. Act treating its status as local authority. Section 10(2) of the I.T. Act reads as under: "The income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head "income from house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources" or from a trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdictional area." 3.1 The Assessing Officer has rejected the contention of the assessee by observing that the assessee did not fulfill the criteria laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. UP State Forest Corporation 230 ITR 945 to be a local authority and made the assessment in the status of 'artificial juridical person'. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upholding that the assessee fulfilled the criteria as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of UP State Forest Corporation (supra), directed the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee as 'local authority' and to allow exemption under section 10(20) of the Act. 3.2 Against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 3.2 Against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal relying upon the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. R.C. Jain reported in AIR 1981 SC 951 held that the assessee was a local authority within the meaning of section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act as it fulfilled all the attributes of a 'local authority' as laid down in the aforesaid case. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue has contended that the assessee has not fulfilled the criteria as envisaged in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. R.C. Jain (supra). He has further contended that the assessee did not provide amenities to the inhabitants of the locality like health, education, water and sewerage. The assessee did not enjoy autonomy as the Gujarat Maritime Board Act did not entrust such functions. Therefore, the assessee cannot be categorized as a local authority as defined in section3 (31) of the General Clauses Act. He has further contended that the Tribunal after considering the ratio of the Apex Court judgment, has, in detail, discussed all the criteria which are required to be considered for 'local authority' and observed in paragraph Nos. 14 to 20 as follows: "14. In UOI v. R.C. Jain AIR 1981 SC 951 , the following distinctive attributes or characteristics of a local authority have been laid down: (I) It must have separate legal existence as a corporate body; (ii) It must not be a mere governmental agency but a legally independent entity; (iii) It must function in a defined area and must ordinarily be elected wholly or partly, directly or indirectly by the inhabitants of the area. (iv) It must enjoy a certain degree of autonomy, which, though not complete, must be appreciable; (v) The statute must entrust the authority with such governmental functions and duties as are usually entrusted to a municipal body for providing such amenities, as health and education services, water and sewerage, town planning and development, roads, markets, transportation etc., to the inhabitants; (vi) It must have power to raise funds in the furtherance of its activities and the fulfillment of the projects entrusted to it by levying taxes, rates, charges, fees etc. all of which may be in addition to the moneys provided by Government. What is essential is that the control and management of the fund must vest in the authority. So far as the first attribute is concerned, we find that section 3(2) of the Gujarat Maritime Board Act (hereinafter referred to as "GMB Act") provides that the Board shall be a body corporate by the name Gujarat Maritime Board having perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of Act, to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and to contract and may by the said name sue and be sued. Thus the assessee fulfills the first attribute. 15. The second and third attributes may be taken together. The second attribute is that the assessee should function as a legally independent entity. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. R.C. Jain (supra) it was observed that the authority should not merely be a government agency but must be legally independent. This attribute is satisfied by section 20 of the GMB Act read with section 2(r). Section 2(r) defines the word "port" as meaning 'any minor port to which this Act applies within such limits as may from time to time be defined by the State Government under the Indian Ports Act". Section 20, which falls under Chapter IV which is titled 'property and contracts' provides for transfer of the assets and liabilities of the State Government and vesting them in GMB, including the right to levy rates. It also provides for the transfer of debts, obligations and liabilities, the capital, the outstanding rates, fees, rents etc. recoverable by the GMB, the suits and litigations and all the employees who were serving the minor ports before the coming into force of the GMB Act. Since all the assets and liabilities of the State Government with regard to minor ports in Gujarat including the right to levy rates have been transferred and vested in the GMB, it cannot be called a governmental agency but is a separate and independent legal entity. We have also seen that under section 3(2) the Board is a body corporate with a perpetual succession and common seal capable of holding property and to enter into independent contract and sue and be sued in its own name. We have also seen that under section 3(2) the Board is a body corporate with a perpetual succession and common seal capable of holding property and to enter into independent contract and sue and be sued in its own name. These attributes also show that it is a legally independent entity. The Board also functions in a defined area viz. In all the minor ports of the State of Gujarat. The provisions referred to above indicate this position. The judgment of the Supreme Court also lays down that the authority must 'ordinarily' be elected by the inhabitants of the area. In the very nature of the things this attribute is not possible to be fulfilled by the assessee because the members of the Board are appointed by the State Government under section3 (4) of the GMB Act. But this is not an indispensable condition and for this reason alone it cannot be said that the Board is not a local authority. Section 105 of the GMB Act empowers the State Government to constitute a State Ports Consultative Committee consisting of members of the Board and other persons who represent the interests of Chamber of Commerce, shipping, sailing, vessels, customs, railways and road transport, labour, communications, fisheries etc., which shall advise the Board on all questions pertaining to the minor ports and to generally help the Board in preparing schemes for development of the minor ports and for removing difficulties etc. The State Government also has the power to constitute local advisory committees under section 106 for the general aid and assistance of the GMB. When such representative bodies are to regularly have inter-face with the GMB, automatically the views of the public, their suggestions for the improvement of the minor ports and for the integrated development of the ports are taken into account by the GMB. Thus, though directly the members of the Board are not elected by the inhabitants of the area, the effect of their interaction with such representative bodies cannot be lost sight of. Further the fact that this is not an indispensable condition is clear from the observations of the Supreme Court to the effect that the authority must 'ordinarily, wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, be elected by the inhabitants of the area' which appear in the judgment. 16. Further the fact that this is not an indispensable condition is clear from the observations of the Supreme Court to the effect that the authority must 'ordinarily, wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, be elected by the inhabitants of the area' which appear in the judgment. 16. The fourth attribute is that the authority must enjoy a certain degree of autonomy which though not complete must be appreciable. In the judgment it has been further observed that the (authority must enjoy freedom to decide itself questions of policy affecting the area administered by it and that the degree of dependence may vary considerably but there should be an appreciable measure of autonomy. This attribute is fulfilled as we see on a reference to Chapter-V of the GMB Act which is titled 'works and services to be provided at minor ports by the Board'. Section 25 which falls under this Chapter confers power on the Board to execute the works and provide appliances to the minor ports and such a power extends within or without the limits of ports. Section 26 gives power to the Board to carry out on behalf of any person any works or services listed in section 25 on mutually agreed terms. Section 27 gives power to the Board to order sea-going vessels to use the docks, berths, jetties, piers or wharfs. Section 24 which fall under the Chapter IV gives power to the Board to enter into contracts for the purposes of the Act. Only if a contract is for a period exceeding five years, the Boards needs to take the previous approval of the State Government. Chapter VI provides for imposition and recovery of rates at the ports. The Board enjoys the power to frame and impose a scale of rates for such services rendered by it as are mentioned in section 37(1). The services includes transshipping of passengers or goods, stevedoring, portage, wharf age, demurrage etc. This Chapter makes elaborates provision in connection with the levy of such fees and rates. Chapter VII concerns the borrowing powers of the Board. The Board has power to raise the loans with the previous sanction of the Government and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Government. This Chapter makes elaborates provision in connection with the levy of such fees and rates. Chapter VII concerns the borrowing powers of the Board. The Board has power to raise the loans with the previous sanction of the Government and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Government. The Board is also empowered to do all such acts in connection with the borrowing of the funds as are necessary to make it effective and elaborate provisions have been made in this Chapter. Section 70 of the GMB Act says that nothing contained in the Act shall be deemed to affect the power of the Board to raise loans under the Local Authorities Loans Act, 1914. The copy of the said Act has been furnished to us. The preamble to this Act says that it is enacted 'to consolidate and amend the law relating to the grant of loans to local authorities. Section 2 of that Act defines a local authority as a person legally entitled to the control or management of any local or municipal fund or legally entitled to impose any cess, rate, duty or tax within any local area. It is apparent that this definition is satisfied by the Board since it is legally entitled to impose and recover rates within the minor ports in the State of Gujarat. This is fortified by a reference to Schedule-I which is to read with section 6 of the Act. Schedule-1 mentions the local authorities to which the Government may extend the provisions of the section and authorized them to borrow money by issuing bills or promissory notes. A look at the Schedule-I shows that the following are mentioned as local authorities. (i) The Corporation or Calcutta and Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta; (ii) The Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay and the Trustees of the Port of Bombay; (iii) The Corporation of Madras and the Trustees for the Port of Madras. The above schedule in the Local Authorities Loans Act, 1914, indicates that an authority for management of the port is also a local authority, just as a municipal corporation of a town or city is a local authority as it is entrusted with the management planning, health, taxes etc. of a particular area in the land. The above schedule in the Local Authorities Loans Act, 1914, indicates that an authority for management of the port is also a local authority, just as a municipal corporation of a town or city is a local authority as it is entrusted with the management planning, health, taxes etc. of a particular area in the land. It seems to us that so far as the land is concerned, the city corporations or municipalities are considered as local authorities and so far as ports are concerned it is the authority vested with the management of the ports which is called the local authority. 17. Reverting to the attribute of autonomy there are provisions right through in the GMB Act which give some sort of supervisory control over the GMB in the sense that some of the acts of GMB may require the permission or sanction or approval of the Gujarat Government. However, that does not affect the autonomy of GMB which exists appreciably. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee in a welfare state like ours some kind of state control over such independent bodies is exercised and may also be necessary to ensure that proper function. But these are only minimal under the GMB Act and do not erode or damage the autonomy of GMB. Therefore, the existence of some state supervision or control which does not affect the independence or policy making power of GMB is not fatal to the claim of autonomy. 18. So far as the fifth attribute is concerned, it seems to us that the governmental function of managing and administering the minor ports in the State of Gujarat has been entrusted to the GMB and thus, this attribute is also satisfied. We have seen in the earlier paragraph that the municipalities and corporations are responsible for providing amenities to the inhabitants in a particular area in the land, whereas providing the amenities and facilities and managing the port which is also the function of the government has been entrusted to GMB since it calls for some specialized knowledge of the technique of managing a port. Managing a port does not merely involve a general administrative knowledge but calls for specialized knowledge about ships, vessels, berthing, weather (conditions, fishing, dredging, so on and so forth and also involves some security measures to be undertaken. Managing a port does not merely involve a general administrative knowledge but calls for specialized knowledge about ships, vessels, berthing, weather (conditions, fishing, dredging, so on and so forth and also involves some security measures to be undertaken. All this involves specialized training and knowledge and that is the reason perhaps that the management and administration of the port have been entrusted to a specialized Board. This is clear from section 3(4)(b) of the GMB Act which provides that except the officers of the State Government who will be appointed as members of the Board, totaling six, the other members shall be appointed from amongst the persons who are, in the opinion of the State Government, having expertise or experience in or capable of representing any one or more of the interests of the shipping, navigations, ports, sailing, vessels, fisheries, trade, commerce, finance, industry, workers of minor ports and such other interests, as in the opinion of the State Government, ought to be represented on the Board." This provision fortifies our view that management of the minor port is a specialized function and the primary responsibility is with the State Government which has entrusted the same to a specialized Board. Thus the fifth attribute also fulfilled by the GMB. 19. The sixth and last attribute is that the authority must have power to raise funds in furtherance of its activities and fulfillment of the projects entrusted to it. Such power can be by levying taxes, rates, charges, fees etc. which may be in addition to the monies given by the Government. It is however essential that the control and management of the fund must vest with the authority. A look at Chapter-VI of the GMB Act, which we have already referred to, shows that the Board is empowered to impose and recover rates at the ports. Detailed provisions have been made from sections 37 to 53 as to how the rates shall be imposed, what are the services for which they can be imposed, power to levy concessional rates and so on. Section 41 which requires the prior sanction of the State Government is only for the scale of rates and statement of conditions framed by the Board and it does not take away the power of the Board to levy the rates. Section 41 which requires the prior sanction of the State Government is only for the scale of rates and statement of conditions framed by the Board and it does not take away the power of the Board to levy the rates. Chapter-VII to which also we have already referred makes detailed provisions for the borrowing powers of the Board. Section 73which falls under Chapter-VIII provides that all the monies of the Board received under the provisions of the GMB Act shall be credited to a fund called the General Account of the Minor Ports. Section 74 makes detailed provisions for the application of the monies in the above account. The Board has power to transfer the monies from the General Account to specified accounts and vice-versa with the previous sanction of the State Government. Monies can be appropriated towards reserve fund, for the Board's own investments etc. The Board has power to write off the Foss and compromise claims but only with the approval of the State Government. Thus it can be seen that the GMB has the power to raise funds by levying rates and fees and to utilize them for the projects of the ports and execution of the works therein. It may be clarified that it is not absolutely necessary that the authority must have power of taxation to raise funds and that the power to raise funds can be inclusive of the power to levy fees for services rendered. This has been clarified in the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.C. Jain (supra). 20. From the above discussion, it may be seen that all the six attributes have been fulfilled by GMB. In addition we may also refer to chapter-X of the GMB Act which authorizes the Board to levy fines and penalties for contravention of certain provisions of the Act. If a fine is levied the aggrieved party can approach the magistrate for redressal. Thus, GMB also has the power to impose fines and penalties. Accordingly, there can be no doubt that GMB is a local authority within the meaning of section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act and is thus entitled to the exemption of its income under section 10 (20) of Income-tax Act." 4.1 He has further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. U.P. Forest Corpn. reported in 230 ITR 945, particularly, paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 which are extracted as under: "10. Applying the above principle in the present case, even though Section 3(3) of the U.P. Forest Corporation Act regards the Corporation as being the local authority but for the purposes of the Act, the meaning of expression 'local authority' as contained in General Clauses Act, which is the Central Act, has to be seen. Merely because the U.P. Forest Corporation Act regards the respondent as a local authority, would not, in law, make the respondent a local authority for the purposes of Section 10(20) of the Act. Whether the respondent is a local authority or not has to be examined without regard to the fact that Section 3(3) of the U.P. Forest Corporation Act regards it as a local authority. The test for determining whether a body is local authority had been laid down by this Court in R.C. Jain's case (supra). In the context of applicability of the Bonus Act, 1965, the question which arose there was whether the Delhi Development Authority was a local authority. In constructing the meaning of the expression 'local authority' as defined in Section 3(3) of the General Clauses Act, it was observed by this Court at page 857-858 as follows: "Let us, therefore, concentrate and confine our attention and enquiry to the definition of 'local authority' in Section 3(31) of the General Clause Act. A proper and careful scrutiny of the language of Section 3(31) suggests that an authority in order to be social Authority, must be of like nature and character as a Municipal Committee, District Board or Body of Port Commissioners, possessing, therefore, many, if not all, of the distinctive attributes and characteristics of a Municipal Committee, District Board, or Body Port Commissioner, but, possessing one essential feature, namely, that it is legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government with, the control and management of a municipal or local fund. What then are the distinctive attributes and characteristics, all or many of which a Municipal Committee, District Board or Body of Port Commissioners shares with any other local authority? First the authorities must have separate legal existence as Corporate bodies. They must not be mere Governmental agencies but must be legally independent entitles. What then are the distinctive attributes and characteristics, all or many of which a Municipal Committee, District Board or Body of Port Commissioners shares with any other local authority? First the authorities must have separate legal existence as Corporate bodies. They must not be mere Governmental agencies but must be legally independent entitles. Next, they must function in a defined area and must ordinarily, wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, be elected by the inhabitants of the area. 'Next they must enjoy a certain degree of autonomy, with freedom to decide for themselves questions of policy affecting the area administered by them. The autonomy may not be complete and the degree of the dependence may vary considerably but, an appreciate measure of the autonomy there must be. Next, they must be entrusted by Statute with such Governmental functions and duties as are usually entrusted to municipal bodies, such as these connected with providing amenities to the inhabitants of the locality, like health and education services, water and sewerage, town planning and development, roads, markets, transportation, social welfare services etc. etc. Broadly we may say that they may be entrusted with the performance of civic duties and functions which would otherwise be Governmental duties and functions. Finally, they must have the power to raise funds for the furtherance of their activities and the fulfillment of their projects by levying taxes, rates, charges, or fees. This may be in addition to moneys provided by Government or obtained by borrowing or otherwise. What is essential is that control or management of the fund must vest in the authority. (Emphasis supplied) (p. 857). This Court then examined the provisions of the Delhi Development Act and came to the conclusion that the said Authority had the above-mentioned attributes of a local authority as defined by section 3(31). 11. The decision in R.C. Jain's Case (supra) was then followed in Calcutta State Transport Corporation's case (supra) where the assesses had contended that it was a local authority. While holding that the definition of the Corporation was not similar to the definition of the Delhi Development Act, it was observed as follows: "We do not think that the said decision is of any help to the assesses herein. The assesses is a road transport corporation constituted to render road transport services in the State. While holding that the definition of the Corporation was not similar to the definition of the Delhi Development Act, it was observed as follows: "We do not think that the said decision is of any help to the assesses herein. The assesses is a road transport corporation constituted to render road transport services in the State. Sections 18 & 19 of the Road Transport Corporations Act which set out the general duty and powers of the Corporation establish clearly that the Corporation is meant mainly and only for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated system of road transport services in the State or part of it, as the case may be. It has no element of popular representation in its constitution. Its powers and functions bear no relation to the powers and functions of a municipal committee, district board or body of port commissioners. It is more in the nature of a trading organization. Merely because it has a fund or for that matter merely because it is constituted to provide a public service and to employ persons in that connection, it cannot be said that its functions are similar to those of municipal council district board or body of port commissioners. The assessee-Corporation stands no comparison with the Delhi Development Authority which has, inter-alia, power to prepare a Master Plan for Delhi specifying the zones (zonalisation), specifying the use to which each zone can be put to, power to order demolition of buildings, where development has been commenced or completed in contravention of the Master Plan Zonal Plan or the permission, declaration of development areas and regulation of development in those areas and power to grant/refuse permission for development of land. Contravention of the Delhi Development Authority's orders is also punishable with imprisonment and fine on conviction as a criminal Court. These are the indicia of governmental power-the power to affect persons and their rights even where they do not choose to deal with it, the power of compulsion. A road transport organization like the assessee herein has no such power. Unless one chooses to deal with it or avail of its services- it cannot affect him or his rights; in its sense, it is like any other non-statutory corporation. A road transport organization like the assessee herein has no such power. Unless one chooses to deal with it or avail of its services- it cannot affect him or his rights; in its sense, it is like any other non-statutory corporation. In this context, it is relevant to notice that thought Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act confers the power to make regulations upon the corporation, that power is confined to "the administration of the affairs of the corporation". Sub-section (2) of Section 45, which elucidates the said power also shows that the said power is confined to internal management of the corporation and the service conditions of its employees only". (emphasis supplied) (p. 520) Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the present case, we find that it is not possible to hold that the Corporation is a local authority within the meaning of that expression contained in Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1857. In R.C. Jain's case (supra), it has been held that the 'local authority' must have the nature and character of a Municipal Committee, District Board, Body of Port Commissioners. We are unable to accept the contention of Shri Gupta that in interpreting the scope and extent of the expression 'other authority' in the definition of 'local authority' in Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act the principle of ejusdem generis is not applicable because there is no distinct genus or category running through the bodies named earlier. The local authorities which are specifically mentioned in Section 3(31) of the General Clause Act clearly can be regarded as local bodies which are interred to carry on self-government. It is for this reason that this definition states that such a authority must have control or management of a Municipal or local fund. Municipal Committee, District Board. Body of Port Commissioner are entities which carry on government affairs in local areas and they would give color to the words 'other authorities' occurring in Section 3(31). To put it differently. 'other authority' referred to in Section 3(31) must be similar or akin to municipal committee, district board or body a Port Commissioners. In R.C. Jain's case (supra), at least five attributes of characteristics of an authority falling under Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act have been mentioned. To put it differently. 'other authority' referred to in Section 3(31) must be similar or akin to municipal committee, district board or body a Port Commissioners. In R.C. Jain's case (supra), at least five attributes of characteristics of an authority falling under Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act have been mentioned. At least three of the five attributes mentioned in the passage quoted above from R.C. Jain's case (supra) are absent here. Firstly; the members of the respondent Corporation are not wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, elected by the inhabitants of the area. According to Section 4 of the U.P. Forest Corporation Act, the Corporation is consisted of a Chairman and eight members. The chairman as well as the members are nominated by the State Government. Five members, so appointed, must be officers serving under the State Government and three non-officials members appointed by the State Government must be belonging to the category, who in the Government's opinion, possess experience in matter relating to preservation and development of forests. It is too tenuous to contend as was sought to be done by Shri Gupta, that because the State Government is a democratically elected body, therefore, persons nominated by the Government to be members of the Corporation must be regarded as being indirectly elected by the inhabitants. This contention is clearly unacceptable. The second essential attribute, which is lacking in the present case, is that the respondent do not have the functions and duties which are usually entrusted to the Municipal bodies such as providing civil amenities to the inhabitants of the locality like health, education, town planning, markets, transportation etc. Finally and which is most important, the respondent does not have the power to raise funds by levying taxes, rates, charge for fees. The expression 'local fund' occurring in Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act would mean the fund of a local self-government. Finally and which is most important, the respondent does not have the power to raise funds by levying taxes, rates, charge for fees. The expression 'local fund' occurring in Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act would mean the fund of a local self-government. In deciding whether Delhi Development Authority was a local authority, the Court had to examine as to whether it's said consisted of any funds flowed directly from any taxing power vested in the D.D.A. It was observed in R.C. Jain's case (supra) as follows: "...In the first place when it is said that one of the attributes of a local authority is the power to raise funds by the method of taxation, taxation is to be understood not in any fine and narrow sense as to include only those compulsory exaction's of money imposed for public purpose and requiring no consideration to sustain it, but in a broad generic sense as to also include fees levied essentially for services rendered. It is now well recognized that there is no generic difference between a tax and a fee; both are compulsory exaction of money by public authority. In deciding the question whether an authority is a local authority, our concern is only to find out whether the public authority is authorized by statute to make a compulsory exaction of money and not with the further question whether the money so exacted is to be utilized for specific or general purposes. In the second place the Delhi Development Authority is constituted for the sole purpose of the planned development of Delhi and no other purpose and there is a merger, as it were, of specific and general purposes. The statutory situation is such that the distinction between tax and fee has withered away. In the third place we see no reason to hold that the charge contemplated by See 37 is a fee and not a tax...." (emphasis supplied) (p. 863) In the case of respondent Corporation, the Act does not enable it to levy any tax, cess or fee. It is the income from the sale of the forest produce which goes to augment its funds. It has no power under the Act of compulsory exaction such as taxes, fees, rates or charges. Like any commercial organization it makes profit from sale of forest produce and it has been given the power to raise loans. It is the income from the sale of the forest produce which goes to augment its funds. It has no power under the Act of compulsory exaction such as taxes, fees, rates or charges. Like any commercial organization it makes profit from sale of forest produce and it has been given the power to raise loans. Whereas municipal or local funds are required to be spent for providing civic amenities, there is no such obligation on the respondent to do so. Merely because Section 17 of the U.P. Forest Corporation Act states that the fund of the Corporation "shall be a local fund" would not make it a local fund as contemplated by Section 3(31)." 4.2 He has further contended that taking into account the above decision, the assessee is not fulfilling the criteria of the local authority. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal is required to be reversed. He has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corpn. v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 219 ITR 515 (SC) wherein it has been held that Calcutta State Transport Corporation is not a local authority so as to be entitled to exemption under section 10(20). Further reliance is placed on the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. H.P. Marketing Board reported in (2011) 15 taxmann.com 211 (HP) where it has been held that Marketing Board is not a local authority within meaning of section 10(20). In view of the above decisions, learned counsel for the revenue has contended that since the assessee is not fulfilling the criteria of the local authority, the Tribunal has committed serious error in holding that the assessee fulfilled all the attributes of local authority. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal is required to be reversed. 5. Mr. S.N. Soparkar, senior advocate, appearing for the assessee has contended that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. He has further contended that the Tribunal has in detail discussed the issue in its order and thereafter, held that the assessee fulfilled the attributes of the local authority and entitled to exemption under section 10(20) of the Act. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal is not required to be reversed. 6. He has further contended that the Tribunal has in detail discussed the issue in its order and thereafter, held that the assessee fulfilled the attributes of the local authority and entitled to exemption under section 10(20) of the Act. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal is not required to be reversed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Looking to the statutory provisions as referred to by the Tribunal in its order, namely, section 3(2) relating to Gujarat Maritime Board, sections 25 to 36 in relation to powers and functions, section 70 giving power to the Board to raise loans under Local Authorities Act, 1914, sections 96 to 104 relating to penalty, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal after discussing the statutory provisions in its order, has given its findings that the assessee has fulfilled the criteria of local authority entitling to claim exemption under section 10(20) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal is not required to be reversed. In that view of the matter, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is therefore dismissed.