Sarvodaya Agency v. ITO

34 TTJ 214Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1989#24574 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)section 4asection 10(46)section 11(6)advancement of general public utilitysection 58stay petitionsection 55section 13(3)section 13(1)(c)section 144aproviso to section 2(15)

Judgments citing Sarvodaya Agency v. ITO

M/S Ayodhya Development Authority (Formely Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority), Lucknow vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 145/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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

…ne that was favorable to the assessee ought to be applied as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products in 88 ITR 192 (SC) . She also submitted that it had been held by the ITAT in Sarvodaya Agency vs. ITO (1989) 34 TTJ 214,that an Obiter Dicta was also worthy of respect and therefore, even if the findings of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority and Ors on the issue of Infrastructure Development and Reserve Fund (IDRF) were considered an Obiter Dicta, it still was worthy of consideration as the views of the Hon’ble High Co…

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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

…that was favorable to the assessee ought to be applied as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products in 88 ITR 192 (SC) . She also submitted that it 35 had been held by the ITAT in Sarvodaya Agency vs. ITO (1989) 34 TTJ 214,that an Obiter Dicta was also worthy of respect and therefore, even if the findings of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority and Ors on the issue of Infrastructure Development and Reserve Fund (IDRF) were considered an Obiter Dicta, it still was worthy of consideration as the views of the Hon’ble High Co…

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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

…that was favorable to the assessee ought to be applied as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products in 88 ITR 192 (SC) . She also submitted that it 36 had been held by the ITAT in Sarvodaya Agency vs. ITO (1989) 34 TTJ 214,that an Obiter Dicta was also worthy of respect and therefore, even if the findings of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority and Ors on the issue of Infrastructure Development and Reserve Fund (IDRF) were considered an Obiter Dicta, it still was worthy of consideration as the views of the Hon’ble High Co…

Sarvodaya Agency v. ITO (34 TTJ 214) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax