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. 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

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

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

8. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was obliged to follow the rule of law relating to taxation and compute the income of the appellant on the basis of statement of income as based on the audit report in form 10-B, as was applicable in its case, by virtue of its being registered under section

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

8. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was obliged to follow the rule of law relating to taxation and compute the income of the appellant on the basis of statement of income as based on the audit report in form 10-B, as was applicable in its case, by virtue of its being registered under section

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

8. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was obliged to follow the rule of law relating to taxation and compute the income of the appellant on the basis of statement of income as based on the audit report in form 10-B, as was applicable in its case, by virtue of its being registered under section

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

8. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was obliged to follow the rule of law relating to taxation and compute the income of the appellant on the basis of statement of income as based on the audit report in form 10-B, as was applicable in its case, by virtue of its being registered under section

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

8. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was obliged to follow the rule of law relating to taxation and compute the income of the appellant on the basis of statement of income as based on the audit report in form 10-B, as was applicable in its case, by virtue of its being registered under section

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

8) inserted by the Financial Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009.\n2. That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Act, disregarding the provisions contained section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the provisions contained in section

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

8)\ninserted by the Financial Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009.\n2. That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Act,\ndisregarding the provisions contained section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the provisions contained in\nsection

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

8)\ninserted by the Financial Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009.\n\n2. That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Act,\ndisregarding the provisions contained section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n\n3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the provisions contained in\nsection

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

8)\ninserted by the Financial Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009.\n\n2. That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Act,\ndisregarding the provisions contained section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n\n3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the provisions contained in\nsection

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

8)\ninserted by the Financial Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009.\n\n2. That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Act,\ndisregarding the provisions contained section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n\n3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the provisions contained in\nsection

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

8)\ninserted by the Financial Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009.\n2. That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Act,\ndisregarding the provisions contained section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the provisions contained in\nsection

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

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

13(k), it was clearly provided that the corporation would be financing industrial projects and would also be giving loans and advances. Therefore, in the opinion of the ld. CIT(A), one of the important objectives of the company was to provide finance and therefore, it would fall in the ambit of any other finance company as envisaged under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR vs. M.K.U PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

TDS was required to be deducted, the disallowance made has as such been deleted by the AO himself. That being so, there was no merit in the appeal of the Department that the ld. CIT(A) had erred in deleting the additions made under sections 40a(ia), made earlier for failure to deduct tax at source under section

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

13(k), it was clearly provided that the corporation\nwould be financing industrial projects and would also be giving loans and advances.\nTherefore, in the opinion of the ld. CIT(A), one of the important objectives of the\ncompany was to provide finance and therefore, it would fall in the ambit of any\nother finance company as envisaged under section