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

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

section 11(2)(a), it is written that the person is required to specify the purpose\nfor which the income is being accumulated or set apart, the views in support of\nsuch interpretation, as expressed in Singhania Charitable Trust and Sir Sobha\nSingh Public Charitable trust regarding the requirement of specificity in the notice\nin Form 10

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)

trust deed of the assessee. iii. There is no material on record to prove that section 60 to 63 had been violated. However, he pointed out, that in the same judgment of Hon’ble High Court had laid down the law that the benefit of section 11 was not absolute or conclusive. It was subject to the controls of section

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)

trust deed of the assessee. iii. There is no material on record to prove that section 60 to 63 had been violated. However, he pointed out, that in the same judgment of Hon’ble High Court had laid down the law that the benefit of section 11 was not absolute or conclusive. It was subject to the controls of section

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)

trust deed of the assessee. iii. There is no material on record to prove that section 60 to 63 had been violated. However, he pointed out, that in the same judgment of Hon’ble High Court had laid down the law that the benefit of section 11 was not absolute or conclusive. It was subject to the controls of section

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)

trust deed of the assessee. iii. There is no material on record to prove that section 60 to 63 had been violated. However, he pointed out, that in the same judgment of Hon’ble High Court had laid down the law that the benefit of section 11 was not absolute or conclusive. It was subject to the controls of section

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

section 148 by the learned AO is without jurisdiction, bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 1.1 The assessee trust was formed on 17.10.2012 and it was constructing hospital building for charitable purpose at rural area of Dist. Shahjahapur. Since inception of the trust and during financial year 2013-14 relevant to Assessment year

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

section 148 by the learned AO is without jurisdiction, bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 1.1 The assessee trust was formed on 17.10.2012 and it was constructing hospital building for charitable purpose at rural area of Dist. Shahjahapur. Since inception of the trust and during financial year 2013-14 relevant to Assessment year

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

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

trust had been utilized for the benefit \nof persons referred to in sub section 3 of section 13. Therefore, he held that the ld. AO had \nrightly disallowed the exemption under section 11 and 12 to the assessee and he had rightly \nassessed the income as taxable business income of the assessee on this account. \n25. In his orders

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

trust had been utilized for the benefit \nof persons referred to in sub section 3 of section 13. Therefore, he held that the ld. AO had \nrightly disallowed the exemption under section 11 and 12 to the assessee and he had rightly \nassessed the income as taxable business income of the assessee on this account.\n25. In his orders

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

trust had been utilized for the benefit \nof persons referred to in sub section 3 of section 13. Therefore, he held that the ld. AO had \nrightly disallowed the exemption under section 11 and 12 to the assessee and he had rightly \nassessed the income as taxable business income of the assessee on this account. \n25. In his orders

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

trust had been utilized for the benefit of persons referred to in sub section 3 of section 13. Therefore, he held that the ld. AO had rightly disallowed the exemption under section 11 and 12 to the assessee and he had rightly assessed the income as taxable business income of the assessee on this account. 25. In his orders

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

Charitable Trust, 199 ITR 819 (Calcutta). The ld. CIT(A) further took note of the plea of the ld. AR that the said case law, which had been relied upon by the ld. AO was not applicable to the facts of its case, because in that case, the trust was having multiple objects, while in the case of Parishad

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

10 had been\nfurnished before the completion of assessment, the ld. AO was required to take it\ninto consideration while working the income of the trust in the manner provided\nunder section 11 of the Act. With regard to the view that the Form No.10 stated that\nthe income amounting to Rs.168.13 Crores would be accumulated and set apart

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

10 had been\nfurnished before the completion of assessment, the ld. AO was required to take it\ninto consideration while working the income of the trust in the manner provided\nunder section 11 of the Act. With regard to the view that the Form No.10 stated that\nthe income amounting to Rs.168.13 Crores would be accumulated and set apart

M/S. BAL KALYAN SAMITI SARASWATI VIDHYA MANDIR INTER COLLEGE,RAMPUR vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.- N.A. M/S Bal Kalyan Samiti, Saraswati Cit (Exemption), Vidhya Mandir Inter College, Near Vs. Lucknow Mandi Samiti, Milak, Rampur, 244921, U.P. Pan:Aacab8257F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(Exemption), Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee Under Section 10(23C)(Vi). The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

charitable activities of the trust. The ld. CIT(Exemption) quoted from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of American Hotel And Lodging vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes (Civil Appeal No.3468/2008) wherein in paragraph 32, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the second proviso to section 10

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

10 had been\nfurnished before the completion of assessment, the ld. AO was required to take it\ninto consideration while working the income of the trust in the manner provided\nunder section 11 of the Act. With regard to the view that the Form No.10 stated that\nthe income amounting to Rs.168.13 Crores would be accumulated and set apart

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

10 had been\nfurnished before the completion of assessment, the ld. AO was required to take it\ninto consideration while working the income of the trust in the manner provided\nunder section 11 of the Act. With regard to the view that the Form No.10 stated that\nthe income amounting to Rs.168.13 Crores would be accumulated and set apart

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

section 11, did not consider the findings of the AO with\nrespect to section 11(2), section 13(1)(d) and section 13(3). He has pointed out that\nonce the ld. CIT(A) had held that the income of the assessee should be computed in\nthe manner specified in section 11, taking into account information given in the\naudit

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

10). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board 295 ITR 561 has held that where the assessee was under a legal obligation to apply its income which was directly and substantially from ITA. Nos.232 to 235/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 22 the business held under trust for the development of minor ports in the State