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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

3 of Form No.10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

3 of Form No.10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

3 of Form No.10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

3 of Form No.10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

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

3 of Form No. 10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

3 of Form No.10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore