M/S. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,UTTAR PRADESH vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: -- Greater Noida Industrial Development Vs. Cit(E), Authority, H-169, Chitvan Estate, Lucknow. Sector-Gamma, Gr. Noida City, District – Gautam Budh Nagar. Uttar Pradesh. (Pan: Aaalg0129L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: - - Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Vs. Cit(E), Authority, First Floor, Commercial Complex, Lucknow. P-2, Sector-Omega 1, Greater Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. (Pan: Aaalt0341D) Assessee By: S/Shri Balbir Singh & Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv., Sk Gupta & Ms. Raj Rani, Cas. Department By: Shri Sandeep Kumar, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02 .03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 :05.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:

house property, capital gain, income from other sources or from business or trade carried on by the authority in respect of a previous year.” After the amendment, the Explanation defines ‘Local Authority’ to include only the authorities mentioned in the Explanation which only include Panchayat, District Board, Municipal Committee and Cantonment Board with effect from 01.04.2003. The learned

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

housing to economically weaker sections of society is only partially correct. The authority has substantial income on sale of properties to sections of society who do not fall within the category of weaker sections. As regards the contention that the assessee authority is engaged in medical or educational activities, merely on the ground that some allotments properties had been made

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT E (CIRCLE), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

housing to economically weaker sections of society is only partially correct. The authority has substantial income on sale of properties to sections of society who do not fall within the category of weaker sections. As regards the contention that the assessee authority is engaged in medical or educational activities, merely on the ground that some allotments properties had been made

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING CO. LTD.

The Appeals are disposed of in the above terms without any order on costs

house properties in question constituted the stock-in- trade or the trading assets of the assessee firm made no difference to the question, 2012:DHC:6622-DB ITA 18/99, 56,57,105, 107,109,114,177/01, 88/02 111, 321,498/03,227,336,529,690/04,212/05 Page 10 was the income from these properties assessable under section 9 or under section

DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. ALIGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ADA), ALIGARH

The appeal of the department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

properties, to carry out building activities, engineering, mining and other operations, to execute works in connection with the supply of electricity and water, to dispose of sewage and to provide and maintain other services and amenities and generally to do anything necessary or expedient for the purpose of such development. The income of the authority was exempt

ADIT(OSD)(E), NEW DELHI vs. BIRD EDUCATION SOCIETY FOR TRAVEL & TOURISM, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

12A exemption has not been withdrawn by the DIT(E) till date a fact not upset by the Revenue before us. This fact is also acknowledged by the AO in his Page 6 of 16 order at page 1 para 2. It is not the case of the Revenue that the activities of the society are found to be contrary

M/s Lavish Apartment (P.) Ltd

house property” and “income from other sources” can be treated as the business income of the assessee as to be eligible for adjustment against the brought forward loss. Here again there has to be distinction between the slotting of the income of an assessee under different heads of income in accordance with the Act and the business income or profits

HARI OM SEWA DAL,ROHTAK vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Sh. Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicia Member

housing, agriculture and animal husbandry and engineering sources. 20. To take up programmes for ensuring protection of environment and for regeneration of natural resources degraded due to past neglects. 21. Promotion and extension of appropriate technology including systems having renewable sources of energy. 22. To take up programmes in which science and technology may have major role in improving life

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CGO COMPLEX, HAPUR CHUNGI vs. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOTIJHEEL, KANPUR

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

12A and assessee is not charitable entity and has\nfurther erred in holding that the assessee is engaged in the commercial\nactivity and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and in\nviolation of principles of natural justice.\n2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.\nCIT(A) has erred

BAGHPAT BARAUT KHEKRA VIKAS PRADHIKARAN,MEERUT vs. CIT, MEERUT

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: Nil Baghpat Baraut Khekra Vs. Cit, Meerut Vikas Pradhikaran, Meerut Pan: Aaalb0713B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Goel, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Cit(Dr)

housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages which before the amendment was not included in computing the total income, was omitted. Consequently, the benefit conferred by clause (20A) on such an Authority was taken away. Thus, in view of the fact that section 10(20A) was omitted and an Explanation

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

houses or independent floors with covered areas larger than the covered area of the property at 25 Kautilya Marg owned by the assessee and nor these properties were confronted with specific instances, thus comparison done by the AO is not justifiable. Further, the appellant contended that the AO erred in invoking the said Provisions with reference to the family members

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

12A, that the business was carried on by the beneficiaries of the trust in furtherance of the objects, that the provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act and not Section 11 (4A) were applicable, that the business of the trust was not carried on with the motive of earning profit but only with a view to deriving, income

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

12A, that the business was carried on by the beneficiaries of the trust in furtherance of the objects, that the provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act and not Section 11 (4A) were applicable, that the business of the trust was not carried on with the motive of earning profit but only with a view to deriving, income

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

12A, that the business was carried on by the beneficiaries of the trust in furtherance of the objects, that the provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act and not Section 11 (4A) were applicable, that the business of the trust was not carried on with the motive of earning profit but only with a view to deriving, income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

12A, that the business was carried on by the beneficiaries of the trust in furtherance of the objects, that the provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act and not Section 11 (4A) were applicable, that the business of the trust was not carried on with the motive of earning profit but only with a view to deriving, income

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

12A, that the business was carried on by the beneficiaries of the trust in furtherance of the objects, that the provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act and not Section 11 (4A) were applicable, that the business of the trust was not carried on with the motive of earning profit but only with a view to deriving, income

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

12A, that the business was carried on by the beneficiaries of the trust in furtherance of the objects, that the provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act and not Section 11 (4A) were applicable, that the business of the trust was not carried on with the motive of earning profit but only with a view to deriving, income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

12A, that the business was carried on by the beneficiaries of the trust in furtherance of the objects, that the provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act and not Section 11(4A) were applicable, that the business of the trust was not carried on with the motive of earning profit but only with a view to deriving, income