CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority

265 CTR 433High Court2014#2228 most cited

What is CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority authority for?

Funds over which a Development Authority has no control, being used as per State Government directions, are not taxable in its hands. Registration under section 12A is also not conclusive, allowing revenue authorities to examine exemption claims under sections 11 to 13 and cancel registration under section 12AA(3).

52

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority · 265 CTR 433 · section 12A registration · conclusiveness of registration · sections 11 to 13 exemption claims · section 12AA(3) cancellation of registration · taxability of funds · funds not under control · State Government directions · Development Authority income tax · charitable trust exemption scrutiny · advancement of general public utility

Also reported as

219 Taxmann 162

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 234D

Issues it is cited on

section 11(2)(a)section 10(20a)section 5(2)(b)section 13(8)section 17(1)section 58section 10(20)section 12aa(3)section 13(1)(d)proviso to section 2(15)advancement of general public utilitysection 80ib(10)

Judgments citing CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority

M/S. Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Varanasi

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 264/ALLD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…r passed by ld. CIT(A) in first round of litigation, has observed that the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by following judgment and order of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority, reported in (2014)265 CTR 433(All.HC) without comparing whether the facts in the instant case are tallying with the facts in the case of Lucknow Development Authority(supra). The tribunal noted that the AO has brought on record in its assessment order that on dissolution of the assessee , all properties , funds and dues which are vested in or realizable by assesseeshall vest…

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 24/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…earlier and due for application in this year were withdrawn out of the investments in prescribed modes. 13. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Lucknow v. Lucknow Development Authority, Gomti Nagar,[2014] 265 CTR 433 (Allahabad) has observed as under:- “The registration under Section12A is mandatory to claim exemption under Sections 11 & 13, but registration alone cannot be treated as conclusive. It is always open to Revenue Authorities, while processing return of income of these assessees, to examine the claim the assessees under Sections 11 and 14 and give…

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 23/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…earlier and due for application in this year were withdrawn out of the investments in prescribed modes. 13. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Lucknow v. Lucknow Development Authority, Gomti Nagar,[2014] 265 CTR 433 (Allahabad) has observed as under:- “The registration under Section12A is mandatory to claim exemption under Sections 11 & 13, but registration alone cannot be treated as conclusive. It is always open to Revenue Authorities, while processing return of income of these assessees, to examine the claim the assessees under Sections 11 and 14 and give…

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 211/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…earlier and due for application in this year were withdrawn out of the investments in prescribed modes. 13. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Lucknow v. Lucknow Development Authority, Gomti Nagar,[2014] 265 CTR 433 (Allahabad) has observed as under:- “The registration under Section12A is mandatory to claim exemption under Sections 11 & 13, but registration alone cannot be treated as conclusive. It is always open to Revenue Authorities, while processing return of income of these assessees, to examine the claim the assessees under Sections 11 and 14 and give…

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 210/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…earlier and due for application in this year were withdrawn out of the investments in prescribed modes. 13. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Lucknow v. Lucknow Development Authority, Gomti Nagar,[2014] 265 CTR 433 (Allahabad) has observed as under:- “The registration under Section12A is mandatory to claim exemption under Sections 11 & 13, but registration alone cannot be treated as conclusive. It is always open to Revenue Authorities, while processing return of income of these assessees, to examine the claim the assessees under Sections 11 and 14 and give…

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 165/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…earlier and due for application in this year were withdrawn out of the investments in prescribed modes. 13. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Lucknow v. Lucknow Development Authority, Gomti Nagar,[2014] 265 CTR 433 (Allahabad) has observed as under:- “The registration under Section12A is mandatory to claim exemption under Sections 11 & 13, but registration alone cannot be treated as conclusive. It is always open to Revenue Authorities, while processing return of income of these assessees, to examine the claim the assessees under Sections 11 and 14 and give…

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 164/LKW/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…earlier and due for application in this year were withdrawn out of the investments in prescribed modes. 13. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Lucknow v. Lucknow Development Authority, Gomti Nagar,[2014] 265 CTR 433 (Allahabad) has observed as under:- “The registration under Section12A is mandatory to claim exemption under Sections 11 & 13, but registration alone cannot be treated as conclusive. It is always open to Revenue Authorities, while processing return of income of these assessees, to examine the claim the assessees under Sections 11 and 14 and give…

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 631/LKW/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…earlier and due for application in this year were withdrawn out of the investments in prescribed modes. 13. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Lucknow v. Lucknow Development Authority, Gomti Nagar,[2014] 265 CTR 433 (Allahabad) has observed as under:- “The registration under Section12A is mandatory to claim exemption under Sections 11 & 13, but registration alone cannot be treated as conclusive. It is always open to Revenue Authorities, while processing return of income of these assessees, to examine the claim the assessees under Sections 11 and 14 and give…

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 630/LKW/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…earlier and due for application in this year were withdrawn out of the investments in prescribed modes. 13. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Lucknow v. Lucknow Development Authority, Gomti Nagar,[2014] 265 CTR 433 (Allahabad) has observed as under:- “The registration under Section12A is mandatory to claim exemption under Sections 11 & 13, but registration alone cannot be treated as conclusive. It is always open to Revenue Authorities, while processing return of income of these assessees, to examine the claim the assessees under Sections 11 and 14 and give…

DCIT (E), Ghaziabad vs. M/S Ghaziabad Development Authortiy, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2156/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh.A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Goswami, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 144A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh.A. D. Jain, Vice-President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1828/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 ITA No. 1829/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 M/s Ghaziabad Development Authority, Vs DCIT(Exemption), C/o M/s RRA Taxindia, Ghaziabad D-28, South Extension, Part-I, South Extension, New Delhi-110049 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAALG0072C ITA No. 2156/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 DCIT(Exemption), Vs M/s Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad C/o M/s RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, South Extension, New Delh…

Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 3, Chennai vs. M/S Chennai Auto Ancilliary Industrtial Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Chennai

ITA 448/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.447/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.448/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (E) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial Ward-3, Infrastructure Upgradation Company बनाम/ Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 79/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.446/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Cross Objection No. 80/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.447/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Cross Objection No. 81/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.448/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Income Tax Officer (E) Industrial Infrastructure Ward-3, बनाम/ Upgradation Company Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Co Nos. 79 To 81/Chny/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane - CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…charitable purpose and not to earn profit, it would not CO Nos. 79 to 81/CHNY/2018 lose its character of a charitable purpose merely because some profit arises from the activity. Similarly, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT V/s Lucknow Development Authority 265 CTR 433 16/09/2013 has held that where a trust is carrying on its activities for the fulfillment of its aims and objectives which are of charitable in nature with no motive to earn profit and in the process, earns some profit, the same would not be hit by proviso to Section 2(15). 7. Thus, it is fairly settled legal position that it is the pre-dominant o…

Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 3, Chennai vs. M/S Chennai Auto Ancilliary Industrtial Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Chennai

ITA 447/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.447/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.448/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (E) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial Ward-3, Infrastructure Upgradation Company बनाम/ Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 79/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.446/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Cross Objection No. 80/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.447/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Cross Objection No. 81/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.448/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Income Tax Officer (E) Industrial Infrastructure Ward-3, बनाम/ Upgradation Company Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Co Nos. 79 To 81/Chny/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane - CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…charitable purpose and not to earn profit, it would not CO Nos. 79 to 81/CHNY/2018 lose its character of a charitable purpose merely because some profit arises from the activity. Similarly, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT V/s Lucknow Development Authority 265 CTR 433 16/09/2013 has held that where a trust is carrying on its activities for the fulfillment of its aims and objectives which are of charitable in nature with no motive to earn profit and in the process, earns some profit, the same would not be hit by proviso to Section 2(15). 7. Thus, it is fairly settled legal position that it is the pre-dominant o…

Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 3, Chennai vs. M/S Chennai Auto Ancilliary Industrtial Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Chennai

ITA 446/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.447/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.448/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (E) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial Ward-3, Infrastructure Upgradation Company बनाम/ Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 79/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.446/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Cross Objection No. 80/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.447/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Cross Objection No. 81/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.448/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Income Tax Officer (E) Industrial Infrastructure Ward-3, बनाम/ Upgradation Company Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Co Nos. 79 To 81/Chny/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane - CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…charitable purpose and not to earn profit, it would not CO Nos. 79 to 81/CHNY/2018 lose its character of a charitable purpose merely because some profit arises from the activity. Similarly, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT V/s Lucknow Development Authority 265 CTR 433 16/09/2013 has held that where a trust is carrying on its activities for the fulfillment of its aims and objectives which are of charitable in nature with no motive to earn profit and in the process, earns some profit, the same would not be hit by proviso to Section 2(15). 7. Thus, it is fairly settled legal position that it is the pre-dominant o…

Ghaziabad Development Authortiy, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT (E), Ghaziabad

In the result, ITA No.5355/Del/2017 is allowed for

ITA 5355/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2013-14
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…ations of the Co-ordinate Bench are reproduced herein under: “12. As regards, the addition made on account of infrastructure fund, Ld. Counsel for assessee relied upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lucknow Development Authority 265 CTR 433 in which it was held as under: “Where the trust is carrying out its activities on noncommercial lines with no motive to earn profits, or fulfillment of its aims and objectives, which are charitable in nature and in the process earn some profits, the same would not be hit by proviso to section 2(15).” 13. Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that…

M/S. Ghaziabad Development Authority, New Delhi vs. ACIT (Excemption), Ghaziabad

In the result, ITA No.5355/Del/2017 is allowed for

ITA 2038/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2012-13
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…ations of the Co-ordinate Bench are reproduced herein under: “12. As regards, the addition made on account of infrastructure fund, Ld. Counsel for assessee relied upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lucknow Development Authority 265 CTR 433 in which it was held as under: “Where the trust is carrying out its activities on noncommercial lines with no motive to earn profits, or fulfillment of its aims and objectives, which are charitable in nature and in the process earn some profits, the same would not be hit by proviso to section 2(15).” 13. Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that…

Southern Gujarat Chamber Trade & Industry Development Centre, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 910/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rasesh Shah & Ms ChaitaliFor Respondent: Mr. O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 234BSection 254(1)

…ITA No. 910/AHD/2016 Assessment Year.2011-12 Southern Gujarat Chamber Trade & Industry Development Centre INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 910/AHD/2016 for Assessment Year: 2011-12 (Virtual Court Hearing) Southern Gujarat Chamber The Income Tax Officer, Trade & Industry Vs. Exemption-Ward, Development Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. New Civil “Samruddhi”, Near Makkai Hospital Majuragate Surat. Bridge Nanpura, Surat-395001. PAN No. AAICS 8963 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rasesh Shah & Ms Chaital…

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar

ITA 6796/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2013-14
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

…opment Authority v. CIT [2018] 169 ITD 202 (Agra - Trib.) ix. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. ACIT [2017] 396 ITR 323 (Guj High Court) x. CIT v. Jodhpur Development Authority [2016] 287 CTR 473 (Raj HC) xi. CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority [2014] 265 CTR 433 (All HC) xii. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. CIT(E) (ITA No. 172/Del/2016) (Delhi-Trib.) 4.4 In view of above and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and the Coordinate bench in asssessee’s own case, we are of the considered view the assessee-authority is carrying out charitable activities with…

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar

ITA 5320/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2014-15
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

…opment Authority v. CIT [2018] 169 ITD 202 (Agra - Trib.) ix. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. ACIT [2017] 396 ITR 323 (Guj High Court) x. CIT v. Jodhpur Development Authority [2016] 287 CTR 473 (Raj HC) xi. CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority [2014] 265 CTR 433 (All HC) xii. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. CIT(E) (ITA No. 172/Del/2016) (Delhi-Trib.) 4.4 In view of above and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and the Coordinate bench in asssessee’s own case, we are of the considered view the assessee-authority is carrying out charitable activities with…

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar

The appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 4617/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) And, Thereafter, Before This Tribunal (Itat)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ra - Trib.) DCIT (E) vs. Haridwar Development Authority ix. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. ACIT [2017] 396 ITR 323 (Guj High Court) x. CIT v. Jodhpur Development Authority [2016] 287 CTR 473 (Raj HC) xi. CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority [2014] 265 CTR 433 (All HC) xii. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. CIT(E) (ITA No. 172/Del/2016) (Delhi-Trib.) 3.8 In view of above and respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and Coordinate bench in asssessee’s own case, we are of the considered view the assessee authority is carrying out charitable activities with object o…

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar

The appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 4616/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) And, Thereafter, Before This Tribunal (Itat)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ra - Trib.) DCIT (E) vs. Haridwar Development Authority ix. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. ACIT [2017] 396 ITR 323 (Guj High Court) x. CIT v. Jodhpur Development Authority [2016] 287 CTR 473 (Raj HC) xi. CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority [2014] 265 CTR 433 (All HC) xii. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. CIT(E) (ITA No. 172/Del/2016) (Delhi-Trib.) 3.8 In view of above and respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and Coordinate bench in asssessee’s own case, we are of the considered view the assessee authority is carrying out charitable activities with object o…