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

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

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)

10B. Hence, the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 11 could not be entertained. The ld. AO further perused the financial statements of the assessee in the context of the newly introduced proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and pointed out that against total receipts of Rs.1537223917/-, the assessee had net profit of Rs.95

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

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

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)

10B. Hence, the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 11 could not be entertained. The ld. AO further perused the financial statements of the assessee in the context of the newly introduced proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and pointed out that against total receipts of Rs.1537223917/-, the assessee had net profit of Rs.95

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

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

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)

10B. Hence, the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 11 could not be entertained. The ld. AO further perused the financial statements of the assessee in the context of the newly introduced proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and pointed out that against total receipts of Rs.1537223917/-, the assessee had net profit of Rs.95

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

10B and at the same time alongwith\nForm 3CA, 3CB and Form 10CCB. The ld. AO observed that evidently the assessee\nhad both claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act and also deduction under\nsection 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was asked to explain, why in\nview of the claim made under section 80IB

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

10B and at the same time alongwith Form 3CA, 3CB and Form 10CCB. The ld. AO observed that evidently the assessee had both claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act and also deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was asked to explain, why in view of the claim made under section 80IB

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

10B and at the same time alongwith\nForm 3CA, 3CB and Form 10CCB. The ld. AO observed that evidently the assessee\nhad both claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act and also deduction under\nsection 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was asked to explain, why in\nview of the claim made under section 80IB

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

10B and at the same time alongwith\nForm 3CA, 3CB and Form 10CCB. The ld. AO observed that evidently the assessee\nhad both claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act and also deduction under\nsection 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was asked to explain, why in\nview of the claim made under section 80IB

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

10B and at the same time alongwith\nForm 3CA, 3CB and Form 10CCB. The ld. AO observed that evidently the assessee\nhad both claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act and also deduction under\nsection 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was asked to explain, why in\nview of the claim made under section 80IB

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

10B and at the same time alongwith\nForm 3CA, 3CB and Form 10CCB. The ld. AO observed that evidently the assessee\nhad both claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act and also deduction under\nsection 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was asked to explain, why in\nview of the claim made under section 80IB

U P SUGAR MILLS COGEN ASSOCIATION,LUCKNOW vs. AO EXEMPTION CIRCLE , LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.145/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Up Sugar Mills Cogen Association, 403, Chintels House,16-Station Road, Lucknow, Up-226001 Pan: Aaatu2238A . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

TDS to ₹11,60,810/-. 2.3. In response to intimation, the assessee approached Revenue u/s 154 of the Act on 23/03/2022 with a request to reprocess by correcting mistake in (a) denying exemption (b) disallowing expenditure against the income. The Revenue rejected the request in limine on 16/09/2022 stating that, ‘latest return for the same PAN & AY has been transferred

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH POLICE AND ARMED FORCES SAHAYATA SANSTHAN, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer V. Uttar Pradesh Police & Armed (Exemption) Forces Sahayata Sansthan Lucknow Room No.6, Naveen Bhawan U.P. Sachivalaya, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaatr4272K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Respondent By: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate O R D E R

section 12A of the Act and it had filed ITA No.516/LKW/2018 Page 5 of 11 its return of income for the year under consideration, declaring Nil income. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that during the year under consideration, total receipts of the trust were to the tune of Rs.3,95,07,063/-, whereas, the total application of funds were Rs.1

M/S SHRI RADHE SHYAM SHRI KRISHAN EDUCATION SAMITI,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. M/S Shri Radhe Shyam Shri Krishan Vs. Shri. Jeotsnaa Johri, Cit Education Samiti, Vill. Post Kalan, Exemption, Income Tax Jalalabad, Distt. Shahjahanpur- Department, Lucknow, U.P. 242001 (Uttar Pradesh) Pan: Aaras7463D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow Denying The Registration Of The Assessee Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Lucknow Has Erred In Rejecting The Grant Of Registration U/S 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 To The Assessee With Total Disregard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Assessee Reserves Its Right To Add, Amend, Alter Or Delete Any Ground Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.” 2. At The Very Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Is Delayed By 533 Days’. A Condonation Petition Has Been Filed By The Assessee In Which It Was Submitted That The Notices Were Sent To The Email Id Of The Assessee’S Former Tax Advisor Sh. Prabhjot Singh, Who Had Not Checked His Emails & Did Not Inform The Assessee Regarding The Receipt Of Notices. Furthermore, Even After Informing The Assessee, The Said Practitioner Was Of The View That The Said Order Was Rectifiable & Would Be Recalled. It Was Only After The Assessee Changed Its Tax Advisor That It Was Advised

TDS) (supra). What emerges from all the judgments is that if the delay is caused due to improper communication to the assessee or incorrect advice of the counsel, it constitutes a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. We note that the assessee does not stand to gain in any way from delaying the appeal and therefore, after considering the petition