CIT v. Sun Engineering (P) Ltd.

198 ITR 197Supreme Court of India1992#4699 most cited

What is CIT v. Sun Engineering (P) Ltd. authority for?

A court's decision must be interpreted within the context of the specific questions of law raised before it. It is impermissible to isolate a word or sentence from its context to define the complete law declared by the court.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sun Engineering · 198 ITR 197 · SC · interpretation of judgment · context of decision · ratio decidendi · questions of law · legal principles

Sections most often in play

Section 10(20A)Section 11Section 13(3)Section 2(15)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 154

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)section 10(20)section 58section 4(2)section 12aa(3)section 60advancement of general public utilitysection 13(3)section 13(1)(c)cancellation of registrationproviso to section 2(15)section 55

Judgments citing CIT v. Sun Engineering (P) Ltd.

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

ITA 375/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 801BSection 80I

…annot be interpreted to hold that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had relaxed the conditions as laid down under the first proviso to section 153C (1). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. 198 ITR 197 (SC) has held that a decision could not be interpreted out of the context to the question of law that were raised before it. M/s Model Tanners (India) Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2009-10 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors vs. Dhanvanti Devi (1996) SUPP. (5) SCR 32 has pointed out that a decision is only an…

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

ITA 374/LKW/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 801BSection 80I

…annot be interpreted to hold that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had relaxed the conditions as laid down under the first proviso to section 153C (1). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. 198 ITR 197 (SC) has held that a decision could not be interpreted out of the context to the question of law that were raised before it. M/s Model Tanners (India) Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2009-10 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors vs. Dhanvanti Devi (1996) SUPP. (5) SCR 32 has pointed out that a decision is only an…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…09-10 i.e. after insertion of the proviso of section 2(15). It also AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 analyzed the questions of law before the Hon’ble High Court and quoting from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 198 ITR 197, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before the Court, it concluded that since the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court did not relate to the impugned assessment year, therefore, the decisi…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…09-10 i.e. after insertion of the proviso of section 2(15). It also AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 analyzed the questions of law before the Hon’ble High Court and quoting from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 198 ITR 197, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before the Court, it concluded that since the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court did not relate to the impugned assessment year, therefore, the decisi…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…09-10 i.e. after insertion of the proviso of section 2(15). It also AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 analyzed the questions of law before the Hon’ble High Court and quoting from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 198 ITR 197, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before the Court, it concluded that since the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court did not relate to the impugned assessment year, therefore, the decisi…

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1073/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…ITA Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad PAN:AAJFM7731M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 M/s Moradabad Development vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Authority, Kanth Road, Mor…

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1072/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…ITA Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad PAN:AAJFM7731M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 M/s Moradabad Development vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Authority, Kanth Road, Mor…

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1071/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…ITA Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad PAN:AAJFM7731M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 M/s Moradabad Development vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Authority, Kanth Road, Mor…

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 273/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…ITA Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad PAN:AAJFM7731M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 M/s Moradabad Development vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Authority, Kanth Road, Mor…

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 520/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…s an established principle of law, that a \ndecision of a Court is to be ascertained from the questions involved in the case and the judgment \nrendered with respect to the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun \nEngineering (P) Ltd., ITD 198 ITR 197 SC, held that a decision could not be interpreted out of the \ncontext to the questions of law which were raised before it. The Hon’ble Court held as under:-\n“Such an interpretation would be reading that judgment totally out of context \nin which the questions arose for decision in that case. It is neither desirable nor \npermissible to pick out…

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 518/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…s an established principle of law, that a \ndecision of a Court is to be ascertained from the questions involved in the case and the judgment \nrendered with respect to the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun \nEngineering (P) Ltd., ITD 198 ITR 197 SC, held that a decision could not be interpreted out of the \ncontext to the questions of law which were raised before it. The Hon’ble Court held as under:- \n“Such an interpretation would be reading that judgment totally out of context \nin which the questions arose for decision in that case. It is neither desirable nor \npermissible to pick ou…

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 267/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

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)

…the assessment year 2009-10 when the provision of section 2(15) were amended by inserting proviso in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. This is the settled law in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering (P) Ltd. 198 ITR 197 that case has to be applied on the basis of facts and contents therein. Each A.Y. is independent and the law prevailing Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. during the assessment year has been considered for deciding the case of that A.Y. In that case the Hon’b…

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 266/ALLD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

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)

…the assessment year 2009-10 when the provision of section 2(15) were amended by inserting proviso in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. This is the settled law in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering (P) Ltd. 198 ITR 197 that case has to be applied on the basis of facts and contents therein. Each A.Y. is independent and the law prevailing Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. during the assessment year has been considered for deciding the case of that A.Y. In that case the Hon’b…

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 265/ALLD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

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)

…the assessment year 2009-10 when the provision of section 2(15) were amended by inserting proviso in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. This is the settled law in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering (P) Ltd. 198 ITR 197 that case has to be applied on the basis of facts and contents therein. Each A.Y. is independent and the law prevailing Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. during the assessment year has been considered for deciding the case of that A.Y. In that case the Hon’b…

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)

…the assessment year 2009-10 when the provision of section 2(15) were amended by inserting proviso in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. This is the settled law in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering (P) Ltd. 198 ITR 197 that case has to be applied on the basis of facts and contents therein. Each A.Y. is independent and the law prevailing Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. during the assessment year has been considered for deciding the case of that A.Y. In that case the Hon’b…

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)

…the assessment year 2009-10 when the provision of Section 2(15) were amended by inserting proviso in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. This is settled law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering (P) Ltd., 198 ITR 197 that case has to be applied on the basis of facts and contents therein. Each A. Y. is independent and the law prevailing during the assessment year has been considered for deciding the case of that A.Y..." 11. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Indore in the case of Indore Development Authority, ITA 366/Ind/2008 has observed…

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)

…the assessment year 2009-10 when the provision of Section 2(15) were amended by inserting proviso in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. This is settled law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering (P) Ltd., 198 ITR 197 that case has to be applied on the basis of facts and contents therein. Each A. Y. is independent and the law prevailing during the assessment year has been considered for deciding the case of that A.Y..." 11. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Indore in the case of Indore Development Authority, ITA 366/Ind/2008 has observed…

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)

…the assessment year 2009-10 when the provision of Section 2(15) were amended by inserting proviso in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. This is settled law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering (P) Ltd., 198 ITR 197 that case has to be applied on the basis of facts and contents therein. Each A. Y. is independent and the law prevailing during the assessment year has been considered for deciding the case of that A.Y..." 11. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Indore in the case of Indore Development Authority, ITA 366/Ind/2008 has observed…

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)

…the assessment year 2009-10 when the provision of Section 2(15) were amended by inserting proviso in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. This is settled law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering (P) Ltd., 198 ITR 197 that case has to be applied on the basis of facts and contents therein. Each A. Y. is independent and the law prevailing during the assessment year has been considered for deciding the case of that A.Y..." 11. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Indore in the case of Indore Development Authority, ITA 366/Ind/2008 has observed…

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)

…the assessment year 2009-10 when the provision of Section 2(15) were amended by inserting proviso in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. This is settled law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering (P) Ltd., 198 ITR 197 that case has to be applied on the basis of facts and contents therein. Each A. Y. is independent and the law prevailing during the assessment year has been considered for deciding the case of that A.Y..." 11. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Indore in the case of Indore Development Authority, ITA 366/Ind/2008 has observed…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2