CIT v. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited

288 ITR 106High Court2007#8554 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 11(2)(a)section 10(20a)section 10(20)section 58section 13(1)(d)section 12aa(3)section 13(8)section 80ib(10)section 11(3)legal expensessection 11(5)accumulation of income

Judgments citing CIT v. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 22/LKW/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…ontention put forth by the ld. AR that the grant had been received for a particular purpose and could not be taxed as there was no element of profit in such grant. Placing his reliance on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited 288 ITR 106 (All) b. Bihar Agricultural Produce vs. CIT, 205 taxman 378 (Patna) c. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation 315 ITR 301 The ld. CIT(A) held that the grant and interest which have been taxed by the ld. AO were meant for specific projects and had been spent for meeting the expenses of these projects and hence these amounts were n…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 21/LKW/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…tention put forth by the ld. AR that the grant had been received for a particular purpose and could not be taxed as there was no element of profit in such grant. Placing his reliance on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited 288 ITR 106 (All) b. Bihar Agricultural Produce vs. CIT, 205 taxman 378 (Patna) c. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation 315 ITR 301 The ld. CIT(A) held that the grant and interest which have been taxed by the ld. AO were meant for specific projects and had been spent for meeting the expenses of these projects and hence these amounts were n…

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

ITA 535/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel & Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12A

…ontention put forth by the ld. AR that the grant had been received for a particular purpose and could not be taxed as there was no element of profit in such grant. Placing his reliance on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited 288 ITR 106 (All) b. Bihar Agricultural Produce vs. CIT, 205 taxman 378 (Patna) c. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation 315 ITR 301 The ld. CIT(A) held that the grant and interest which have been taxed by the ld. AO were meant for specific projects and had been spent for meeting the expenses of these projects and hence these amounts were no…

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

ITA 534/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel &
Section 11Section 12A

…ed as 22 ITA Nos.532 & 533/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.534 & 535/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.21 & 22/LKW/2019 U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad there was no element of profit in such grant. Placing his reliance on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited 288 ITR 106 (All) b. Bihar Agricultural Produce vs. CIT, 205 taxman 378 (Patna) c. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation 315 ITR 301 The ld. CIT(A) held that the grant and interest which have been taxed by the ld. AO were meant for specific projects and had been spent for meeting the expenses of these projects and hence these amounts were no…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 533/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…ontention put forth by the ld. AR that the grant had been received for a particular purpose and could not be taxed as there was no element of profit in such grant. Placing his reliance on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited 288 ITR 106 (All) b. Bihar Agricultural Produce vs. CIT, 205 taxman 378 (Patna) c. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation 315 ITR 301 The ld. CIT(A) held that the grant and interest which have been taxed by the ld. AO were meant for specific projects and had been spent for meeting the expenses of these projects and hence these amounts were no…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 532/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…ontention put forth by the ld. AR that the grant had been received for a particular purpose and could not be taxed as there was no element of profit in such grant. Placing his reliance on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited 288 ITR 106 (All) b. Bihar Agricultural Produce vs. CIT, 205 taxman 378 (Patna) c. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation 315 ITR 301 The ld. CIT(A) held that the grant and interest which have been taxed by the ld. AO were meant for specific projects and had been spent for meeting the expenses of these projects and hence these amounts were no…

CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL TITAWI ,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4356/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2014-15
Section 10(20)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 234A

…erefore, could not be termed as a revenue receipt so as to form part of the total income. Learned counsel for the respondents-assessee had relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 106 (Allahabad) wherein a similar question had arisen with regard to the income of cane society and this Court has held hereunder; "8. From a perusal of the aforesaid findings, we are of the considered opinion that the amount in question was given by the State Government for specific purpose. It did not partake of the nature of income of the responde…

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 857/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of Electronics & Quality Income-Tax (Exemptions), Vs Development Centre, Circle-1, Ahmedabad B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R Assessment Years : 2014-15 Electronics & Quality The Dy. Commissioner Of Development Centre, Vs Income-Tax (Exemptions), B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Circle-1, Ahmedabad Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: These Two Appeals, One Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 807/Ahd/2018 & Other Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 857/Ahd/2018, Are Cross Appeals Which Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 16.01.2018, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Revenue’S Appeal; Ground No.1 Of Which Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 2(15)

…1 for AY 2005-06]0. iv)Sukhdeo Charity Estate v ITO [192 1TR 615 (Raj)] v) Sukhdeo Charity Estate v ITO [149 ITR 470 (Raj)] vi)CIT v Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corporation [284 ITR 582 (Karn)] vii)CIT v. UPUpbhokta Sahakar Sangh Ltd [288 ITR 106 (All)] viii)Gujarat Municipal Finance Board v DCIT [221 ITR 317 (Guj)] ITA No. 807 & 857Ahd/2018 Electronics & Quality Development Centre AY : 2014-15 4 We hope that the above will fully meet with the requirements for finalizing the assessment of our client EQDC.” 4. The Assessing Officer did not find the explanation offered by the assessee to…

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 807/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of Electronics & Quality Income-Tax (Exemptions), Vs Development Centre, Circle-1, Ahmedabad B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R Assessment Years : 2014-15 Electronics & Quality The Dy. Commissioner Of Development Centre, Vs Income-Tax (Exemptions), B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Circle-1, Ahmedabad Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: These Two Appeals, One Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 807/Ahd/2018 & Other Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 857/Ahd/2018, Are Cross Appeals Which Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 16.01.2018, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Revenue’S Appeal; Ground No.1 Of Which Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 2(15)

…1 for AY 2005-06]0. iv)Sukhdeo Charity Estate v ITO [192 1TR 615 (Raj)] v) Sukhdeo Charity Estate v ITO [149 ITR 470 (Raj)] vi)CIT v Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corporation [284 ITR 582 (Karn)] vii)CIT v. UPUpbhokta Sahakar Sangh Ltd [288 ITR 106 (All)] viii)Gujarat Municipal Finance Board v DCIT [221 ITR 317 (Guj)] ITA No. 807 & 857Ahd/2018 Electronics & Quality Development Centre AY : 2014-15 4 We hope that the above will fully meet with the requirements for finalizing the assessment of our client EQDC.” 4. The Assessing Officer did not find the explanation offered by the assessee to…

CHHATTISGARH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 12/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Corporation Ltd., Income Tax 3(1), The Hitavada Parisar, Aaykar Bhavan, Avani Vihar, Civil Lines, Raipur (Cg). Raipur (Cg). Pan: Aaccc1772C

For Appellant: Shri Pauan Ved &For Respondent: Shri R.K. Singh, CIT, DR

…ny substantial question of law involved in this appeal and, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.” 18. We find the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. UP Upbhoktha Sahakari Sangh Ltd., reported in 288 ITR 106 (All) has held that the sum received by the assessee, a cooperative society from the State government for disbursement to its Bhandars to meet out the expenses of salary of certain employees of Bhandars which has been distributed among the Bhandars in compliance of the Government order was not income of the assessee. The relevant observations of…

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA COMPUTER APPLICATION CENTRE, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 282/CTK/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Oct 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR/D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 251

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.282 to 284/CTK/2015 Assessment Years : 2000-2001 to 2002-03 ITO, Ward 5(3), Vs. Orissa Computer Application Bhubaneswar Centre, No.N1/7-D, Acharya Vihar, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No.AAAQAO 0246 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) C.O.Nos.39 to 41/CT/2015 (arising out of ITA Nos.282 to 284/CTK/2015 Assessment Years : 2000-2001 to 2002-03 Orissa Computer Application Vs. ITO, Ward 5(3), Centre, No.N1/7-D, Acharya Bhubaneswar Vihar, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No.AAAQAO 0246…

THE HANDLOOM EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2131/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 2130 & 2131/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(1)

…k such grants to GOI and that utilization certification from CA has to be submitted to GOI. Assessee has fully complied ITA Nos.2130 & 2131/Mds/2013 :- 3 -: with these conditions and hence the above sum is not income of assessee. Vide decisions reported in 288 ITR 106 & 306 ITR 153. The assessee also filed additional evidences under Rule 29 of Income Tax Rules (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963 read as under:- ‘’In connection with the above appeals, appellant, in support of its additional grounds, (filed in May,2014) that ‘’grants-in-aid’’ received by it from Government of India was for the specific purpose for…

THE HANDLOOM EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2130/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 2130 & 2131/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(1)

…k such grants to GOI and that utilization certification from CA has to be submitted to GOI. Assessee has fully complied ITA Nos.2130 & 2131/Mds/2013 :- 3 -: with these conditions and hence the above sum is not income of assessee. Vide decisions reported in 288 ITR 106 & 306 ITR 153. The assessee also filed additional evidences under Rule 29 of Income Tax Rules (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963 read as under:- ‘’In connection with the above appeals, appellant, in support of its additional grounds, (filed in May,2014) that ‘’grants-in-aid’’ received by it from Government of India was for the specific purpose for…