ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

trust had been granted registration under section\n12A, the expenditure claimed by the assessee in respect of capital expenditure\ntowards of application of income should be denied, as it was not for charitable\npurposes. The ld. CIT(A) also referred to the deposit of cash

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Deposits" on account of acknowledgement and project developed by the appellant Parishad amounted to the income liable for the taxation, on the grounds that - (i) the Appellant, is following Cash System of Accounting; and (ii) As per accounting policies of the Appellant dealing with revenue recognition, the sale of properties under self-finance scheme and on installment basis have been

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Deposits" on account of acknowledgement and project developed by the appellant Parishad amounted to the income liable for the taxation, on the grounds that - (i) the Appellant, is following Cash System of Accounting; and (ii) As per accounting policies of the Appellant dealing with revenue recognition, the sale of properties under self-finance scheme and on installment basis have been

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Deposits" on account of acknowledgement and project developed by the appellant Parishad amounted to the income liable for the taxation, on the grounds that - (i) the Appellant, is following Cash System of Accounting; and (ii) As per accounting policies of the Appellant dealing with revenue recognition, the sale of properties under self-finance scheme and on installment basis have been

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

deposited with banks. The copies of said bank accounts were duly filed during the course of assessment proceeding u/s 143(2) before Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow. Proceeding u/s 153C were initiated against the assessee trust. Thereafter the case was transferred to the Central Circle. Detailed show cause notice about all the donations received by the trust was issued

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

deposited with banks. The copies of said bank accounts were duly filed during the course of assessment proceeding u/s 143(2) before Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow. Proceeding u/s 153C were initiated against the assessee trust. Thereafter the case was transferred to the Central Circle. Detailed show cause notice about all the donations received by the trust was issued

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

deposited in FDRs, from which interest was earned by the assessee. He went on to observe that, from the costing details submitted by the assessee, apart from expenses claimed on land, civil work, material cost, work charge cost, a 12% supervision charged was also charged for each unit built and interest was charged for the period of construction. Furthermore

RAM SWAROOP MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. C.I.T. (E), LUCKNOW

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.33/Lkw/2021

cash deposits, discrepancies in audited final accounts and documents in support of claim of ITAT-Lucknow Page 3 of 5 Ram Swaroop Memorial Charitable Trust

SRI RAM JANKI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,FAIZABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Ram Janki Educational V. The Assessing Officer Charitable Trust (Exemption) Ram Nagar, Amawasufi Lucknow Faizabad (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aamts3887K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

Charitable Trust (Exemption) Ram Nagar, Amawasufi Lucknow Faizabad (U.P) TAN/PAN:AAMTS3887K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 24.06.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts

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

deposited in FDRs, from which interest\nwas earned by the assessee. He went on to observe that, from the costing details\nsubmitted by the assessee, apart from expenses claimed on land, civil work, material\ncost, work charge cost, a 12% supervision charged was also charged for each unit\nbuilt and interest was charged for the period of construction. Furthermore

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

deposited in FDRs, from which interest\nwas earned by the assessee. He went on to observe that, from the costing details\nsubmitted by the assessee, apart from expenses claimed on land, civil work, material\ncost, work charge cost, a 12% supervision charged was also charged for each unit\nbuilt and interest was charged for the period of construction. Furthermore

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

deposited in FDRs, from which interest\nwas earned by the assessee. He went on to observe that, from the costing details\nsubmitted by the assessee, apart from expenses claimed on land, civil work, material\ncost, work charge cost, a 12% supervision charged was also charged for each unit\nbuilt and interest was charged for the period of construction. Furthermore

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

deposited in FDRs, from which interest\nwas earned by the assessee. He went on to observe that, from the costing details\nsubmitted by the assessee, apart from expenses claimed on land, civil work, material\ncost, work charge cost, a 12% supervision charged was also charged for each unit\nbuilt and interest was charged for the period of construction. Furthermore

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

deposited in FDRs, from which interest\nwas earned by the assessee. He went on to observe that, from the costing details\nsubmitted by the assessee, apart from expenses claimed on land, civil work, material\ncost, work charge cost, a 12% supervision charged was also charged for each unit\nbuilt and interest was charged for the period of construction. Furthermore

ACIT(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. BHAGWANT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BIJNOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

trusts are made for advancement\nof education it was held to be a charitable purpose.\nIt is therefore clear that the reliance made by AO on this judgement is\nmisplaced and rather supports the case of appellant. The above dues are\nimportant source of revenue from the students to attain the main objects of\nthe society. These dues being charged

SMT.SATYAWATI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,FAIZABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: N.A. Smt. Satyawati Memorial Educational V. The Cit (Exemption) & Charitable Trust Lucknow Satyawati Sadan, 4/4/326 Khaswaspura, Ayodhya Road Faizabad Tan/Pan:Aajts7143K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2022 O R D E R

deposit of the funds. 13. In the present case, the ld. CIT (E) rejected the assessee’s request for grant of approval for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the I.T. Act , holding that (1) the objects of the applicant included non-educational objects also, which objects are not ancillary or incidental to the dominant object, i.e., education

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

deposits and the same was reinvested to generate \nfresh investment. It had more than Rs.11.11 Crores of investment in the form of FDRs and \nsavings accounts and was earning interest on the same. This earning of interest was devoid of \nany charitable purpose and was also not incidental to the nature of activity performed by the \nassessee. Furthermore, the assessee

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

deposits and the same was reinvested to generate \nfresh investment. It had more than Rs.11.11 Crores of investment in the form of FDRs and \nsavings accounts and was earning interest on the same. This earning of interest was devoid of \nany charitable purpose and was also not incidental to the nature of activity performed by the \nassessee. Furthermore, the assessee

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

cash basis. Therefore, the assessee was legally entitled to claim deduction on these expenses under section 11. In its submissions for the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee quoted from the judgments of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority and from the order of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Moradabad