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

B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.76/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2013-14 State Bank of India, Vs. Dy.C.I.T. (TDS), RBO-III, (Admin Office) Kanpur. Main Branch, Kanpur. TAN:KNPSO4068B (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.22/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2012-13 State Bank of India, Vs. Dy.C.I.T. (TDS), Fund Settlement Link Office, Kanpur. Kanpur

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

B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.76/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2013-14 State Bank of India, Vs. Dy.C.I.T. (TDS), RBO-III, (Admin Office) Kanpur. Main Branch, Kanpur. TAN:KNPSO4068B (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.22/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2012-13 State Bank of India, Vs. Dy.C.I.T. (TDS), Fund Settlement Link Office, Kanpur. Kanpur

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

B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.76/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2013-14 State Bank of India, Vs. Dy.C.I.T. (TDS), RBO-III, (Admin Office) Kanpur. Main Branch, Kanpur. TAN:KNPSO4068B (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.22/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2012-13 State Bank of India, Vs. Dy.C.I.T. (TDS), Fund Settlement Link Office, Kanpur. Kanpur

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

B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.76/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2013-14 State Bank of India, Vs. Dy.C.I.T. (TDS), RBO-III, (Admin Office) Kanpur. Main Branch, Kanpur. TAN:KNPSO4068B (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.22/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2012-13 State Bank of India, Vs. Dy.C.I.T. (TDS), Fund Settlement Link Office, Kanpur. Kanpur

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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 G.O., part

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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 G.O., part

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

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 G.O., part

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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 G.O., part

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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 G.O., part

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. 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

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 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 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

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