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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

11(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea of the assessee for accumulation of income. 7. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure fund. Perusing the G.O. dated 15.12.1998, to which the infrastructure fund owed its origin, he observed that as per the said

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

11(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea of the assessee for accumulation of income. 7. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure fund. Perusing the G.O. dated 15.12.1998, to which the infrastructure fund owed its origin, he observed that as per the said

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

11(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea of the assessee for accumulation of income. 20 ITA Nos.532 & 533/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.534 & 535/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.21 & 22/LKW/2019 U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad 7. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure fund. Perusing the G.O. dated

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

11(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea of the assessee for accumulation of income. 7. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure fund. Perusing the G.O. dated 15.12.1998, to which the infrastructure fund owed its origin, he observed that as per the said

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

11(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea of the assessee for accumulation of income. 7. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure fund. Perusing the G.O. dated 15.12.1998, to which the infrastructure fund owed its origin, he observed that as per the said

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

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)

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.95,60,17,385.48/- during the year and funds generated

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)

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.95,60,17,385.48/- during the year and funds generated

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)

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.95,60,17,385.48/- during the year and funds generated

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)

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.95,60,17,385.48/- during the year and funds generated

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

2(15) of the I.T. Act (iii)accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible for registration under section 12A in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble ITAT (iv) in pursuance of the said order dated 25.07.2005, the Ld. CIT had already issued certificate of registration under section 12A dated 17.01.2006 which covers the year

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

2(15) of the I.T. Act (iii)accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible for registration under section 12A in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble ITAT (iv) in pursuance of the said order dated 25.07.2005, the Ld. CIT had already issued certificate of registration under section 12A dated 17.01.2006 which covers the year

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

2(15) of the I.T. Act (iii)accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible for registration under section 12A in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble ITAT (iv) in pursuance of the said order dated 25.07.2005, the Ld. CIT had already issued certificate of registration under section 12A dated 17.01.2006 which covers the year

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

2(15) of the I.T. Act (iii)accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible for registration under section 12A in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble ITAT (iv) in pursuance of the said order dated 25.07.2005, the Ld. CIT had already issued certificate of registration under section 12A dated 17.01.2006 which covers the year

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

2(15) of the I.T. Act (iii)accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible for registration under section 12A in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble ITAT (iv) in pursuance of the said order dated 25.07.2005, the Ld. CIT had already issued certificate of registration under section 12A dated 17.01.2006 which covers the year

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

TDS were not applicable to this transaction and therefore, the Tribunal held that it was not an interest received by the assessee on loans/advances, within the meaning of section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act. Therefore, it held that the provisions of section 5 of the Interest Tax Act were not attracted in respect of such interest. The Tribunal

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyinterest Tax Appeal Nos.3 & 4/Lkw/2004 A.Ys.1995-96 & 1996-97

TDS were not applicable to this transaction and therefore, the Tribunal held that it was not an interest received by the assessee on loans/advances, within the meaning of section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act. Therefore, it held that the provisions of section 5 of the Interest Tax Act were not attracted in respect of such interest. The Tribunal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar