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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

43,047/- to taxation. 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in distinguishing the following series of judgments which fully cover the issue of eligibility of exemption under section 11 and non applicability of provision to section 2(15) :- a) judgment and order dated 10.11.2006, the objects for attainment of which the appellant/Authority had come

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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

43,047/- to taxation. 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in distinguishing the following series of judgments which fully cover the issue of eligibility of exemption under section 11 and non applicability of provision to section 2(15) :- a) judgment and order dated 10.11.2006, the objects for attainment of which the appellant/Authority had come

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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

43,047/- to taxation. 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in distinguishing the following series of judgments which fully cover the issue of eligibility of exemption under section 11 and non applicability of provision to section 2(15) :- a) judgment and order dated 10.11.2006, the objects for attainment of which the appellant/Authority had come

M.K. AGRAWAL & CO.,SONEBHADRA vs. ACIT RANGE-III, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 M.K. Agrawal & Co., V. Acit, Range-Ii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra

1 to section 194A after the amendment by Finance Act 2006 w.e.f. 13.07.2006 and thereby the payment made by the assessee towards hire charges on hire purchase agreement is liable for TDS u/s 194I of the Income Tax Act. The ld. DR has also relied upon the decision dated 09.04.2018 of Mumbai Benches of Tribunal in the case

SANJAY MAJUMDAR,ALLAHABAD vs. PR. CIT, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Sanjay Majumdar, V. The Principal Commissioner Type Ii – 112, Devprayagam Of Income Tax, Sangam Vatika – Jhalwa, Aayakar Bhawan, Allahabad 211012 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad 211001 Pan: Adopm 2688P (Appellant) (Respondent)

1,43,62,000/- is of purchaser of the property and not of the assessee because this expenditure is not over and above the total sale consideration of Rs. 4,53,62,000/-. Thus from the set of facts on record, it is very evident that assessee has wrongly claimed proportionate expenditure of Rs. 41,57,076/- as cost