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)

TDS under section 194C of the Act had been deducted. Therefore the nature of the activities being conducted by the assessee was akin to the activities of the builders, developers and contractors. Therefore, the ld. AO held that since the amount of receipts on account of such activities was in excess of Rs.25 Lacs, the assessee

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)

TDS under section 194C of the Act had been deducted. Therefore the nature of the activities being conducted by the assessee was akin to the activities of the builders, developers and contractors. Therefore, the ld. AO held that since the amount of receipts on account of such activities was in excess of Rs.25 Lacs, the assessee

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)

TDS under section 194C of the Act had been deducted. Therefore the nature of the activities being conducted by the assessee was akin to the activities of the builders, developers and contractors. Therefore, the ld. AO held that since the amount of receipts on account of such activities was in excess of Rs.25 Lacs, the assessee

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

c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not treating the appellant as Charitable Institution, even though the same has already been adjudged to be so by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in its judgement dated I.T.A. Nos.185

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

c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not treating the appellant as Charitable Institution, even though the same has already been adjudged to be so by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in its judgement dated I.T.A. Nos.185

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

c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not treating the appellant as Charitable Institution, even though the same has already been adjudged to be so by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in its judgement dated I.T.A. Nos.185

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

c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not treating the appellant as Charitable Institution, even though the same has already been adjudged to be so by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in its judgement dated I.T.A. Nos.185

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

c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not treating the appellant as Charitable Institution, even though the same has already been adjudged to be so by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in its judgement dated I.T.A. Nos.185

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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

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

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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

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

c) Rs.2,09,28,657: Received on "loans and others including UPSEB loans"; (d) Rs.9,66,47,048: in relation to premium payable by the allottees of Industrial Sheds/sites aggregating Rs. 11,75,75,706 and in upholding the liability of the appellant to that extent. 7.2 BECAUSE none of the two sums as mentioned above can be treated

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

c) Rs.2,09,28,657: Received on "loans and others including UPSEB loans"; (d) Rs.9,66,47,048: in relation to premium payable by the allottees of Industrial Sheds/sites aggregating Rs.11,75,75,706 and in upholding the liability of the appellant to that extent. 7.2 BECAUSE none of the two sums as mentioned above can be treated as 'chargeable

KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

13 of 26 to Assessment Year 1984-1985. The relevant accounting period ended on 30-6-1983. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee which was on account of sales tax collected by the assessee for the last quarter of the relevant accounting year. The deduction was disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above

GOLDEN COMTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Golden Comtrade Private Limited, Vs. Acit-5, 58/43, Birhana Road, Kanpur Kanpur-208001 Pan: Aaccg 1622R (Appellant) (Respondent)

C 34,83,315 X1,90,00,000 20,27,27,098 = Rs. 3,26,463/ Further, as per provisions of Sec. 14A read with Rule 8D (2 )((iii), 0.5% of the average of value of investment as appearing in the Balance Sheet of the assessee on the first day and the last day of the previous year

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

c. Salary/remuneration has been paid in excess of reasonably payable; d. Services of the trust has been provided without adequate consideration; e. Any property is purchased by trust from persons covered u/s 13(3) for more than adequate consideration; f. Any property is sold by trust to persons covered u/s 13(3) for consideration less than adequate; g. Funds