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

TDS and grant the benefit to the assessee as per law.\nOn the issue of charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C, holding that\nthe charging of interest was mandatory, he rejected the plea of the assessee but\ndirected the ld. AO to allow the consequential relief that would arise as a result of\nthe decisions made

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

TDS and grant the benefit to the assessee as per law.\nOn the issue of charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C, holding that\nthe charging of interest was mandatory, he rejected the plea of the assessee but\ndirected the ld. AO to allow the consequential relief that would arise as a result of\nthe decisions made

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

TDS and grant the benefit to the assessee as per law.\nOn the issue of charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C, holding that\nthe charging of interest was mandatory, he rejected the plea of the assessee but\ndirected the ld. AO to allow the consequential relief that would arise as a result of\nthe decisions made

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

TDS and grant the benefit to the assessee as per law.\nOn the issue of charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C, holding that\nthe charging of interest was mandatory, he rejected the plea of the assessee but\ndirected the ld. AO to allow the consequential relief that would arise as a result of\nthe decisions made

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)

5. The ld. AO was not satisfied with the replies submitted by the assessee. He held that firstly the requirement of compliance to the provisions of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act had not been complied with and secondly the new provisions of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act had come into play. He proceeded

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)

5. The ld. AO was not satisfied with the replies submitted by the assessee. He held that firstly the requirement of compliance to the provisions of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act had not been complied with and secondly the new provisions of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act had come into play. He proceeded

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)

5. The ld. AO was not satisfied with the replies submitted by the assessee. He held that firstly the requirement of compliance to the provisions of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act had not been complied with and secondly the new provisions of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act had come into play. He proceeded

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)

5. The ld. AO was not satisfied with the replies submitted by the assessee. He held that firstly the requirement of compliance to the provisions of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act had not been complied with and secondly the new provisions of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act had come into play. He proceeded

STATE BANK OF INDIA,,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

section 10(5) of the Act. The ground of appeal No. 3 raised by the assessee is thus dismissed." 11. No contrary authority has been brought to the notice of the Bench. We, therefore, do not see any reason to deviate from I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 17 the said view taken by the Coordinate Benches. In the result

STATE BANK OF INDIA, FUND SETTLEMENT OFFICE,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

section 10(5) of the Act. The ground of appeal No. 3 raised by the assessee is thus dismissed." 11. No contrary authority has been brought to the notice of the Bench. We, therefore, do not see any reason to deviate from I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 17 the said view taken by the Coordinate Benches. In the result

STATE BANK OF INDIA,,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

section 10(5) of the Act. The ground of appeal No. 3 raised by the assessee is thus dismissed." 11. No contrary authority has been brought to the notice of the Bench. We, therefore, do not see any reason to deviate from I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 17 the said view taken by the Coordinate Benches. In the result

S.B.I RBO III (ADMIN OFFICE),KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

section 10(5) of the Act. The ground of appeal No. 3 raised by the assessee is thus dismissed." 11. No contrary authority has been brought to the notice of the Bench. We, therefore, do not see any reason to deviate from I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 17 the said view taken by the Coordinate Benches. In the result

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

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

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

5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the exemption u/s 11, 12 and 13 read with first Proviso to section 2(15) on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income

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

5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the exemption u/s 11, 12 and 13 read with first Proviso to section 2(15) on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income

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

5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the exemption u/s 11, 12 and 13 read with first Proviso to section 2(15) on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income

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

5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the exemption u/s 11, 12 and 13 read with first Proviso to section 2(15) on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income