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

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

section 11(1)(a), she held that\nincome derived from property held under trust was to be treated as exempt to the\nextent that such income was applied to charitable purposes in India. She\nremanded the matter to the assessing officer for examination of this and noted\nthe submissions of the Assessing Officer in the remand report that the main

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

section 11(2). Placing reliance on the following decisions:\na. Cotton Textile Export Promotion Council vs.1st ITO 4 ITD 642.\nb. Karnal Improvement Trust vs. ACIT, 16 taxman.com 63 (ITAT-Del).\nc. CIT vs. M.CT Muthaiah Family Trust, 245 ITR 400 (Madras).\nd. Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable

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

section 11(2). Placing reliance on the\nfollowing decisions:\na. Cotton Textile Export Promotion Council vs.1st ITO 4 ITD 642.\nb. Karnal Improvement Trust vs. ACIT, 16 taxman.com 63 (ITAT-Del).\nc. CIT vs. M.CT Muthaiah Family Trust, 245 ITR 400 (Madras).\nd. Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable

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

section 11(2). Placing reliance on the\nfollowing decisions:\na. Cotton Textile Export Promotion Council vs.1st ITO 4 ITD 642.\nb. Karnal Improvement Trust vs. ACIT, 16 taxman.com 63 (ITAT-Del).\nc. CIT vs. M.CT Muthaiah Family Trust, 245 ITR 400 (Madras).\nd. Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable

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

section 11(2). Placing reliance on the\nfollowing decisions:\na. Cotton Textile Export Promotion Council vs.1st ITO 4 ITD 642.\nb. Karnal Improvement Trust vs. ACIT, 16 taxman.com 63 (ITAT-Del).\nc. CIT vs. M.CT Muthaiah Family Trust, 245 ITR 400 (Madras).\nd. Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable

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

section 11(2). Placing reliance on the\nfollowing decisions:\na. Cotton Textile Export Promotion Council vs.1st ITO 4 ITD 642.\nb. Karnal Improvement Trust vs. ACIT, 16 taxman.com 63 (ITAT-Del).\nc. CIT vs. M.CT Muthaiah Family Trust, 245 ITR 400 (Madras).\nd. Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable

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

section 11(2). Placing reliance on the\nfollowing decisions:\na. Cotton Textile Export Promotion Council vs.1st ITO 4 ITD 642.\nb. Karnal Improvement Trust vs. ACIT, 16 taxman.com 63 (ITAT-Del).\nc. CIT vs. M.CT Muthaiah Family Trust, 245 ITR 400 (Madras).\nd. Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable

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

11 and 12. After referring to various authorities, Court then said that legal effect of true facts and documents is a question of law. Determination of nature of trust as wholly religious or wholly charitable or both charitable and religious under Act, 1961 is not a question of fact. It is a question which requires examination of legal effects

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

11 and 12. After referring to various authorities, Court then said that legal effect of true facts and documents is a question of law. Determination of nature of trust as wholly religious or wholly charitable or both charitable and religious under Act, 1961 is not a question of fact. It is a question which requires examination of legal effects

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

11 and 12. After referring to various authorities, Court then said that legal effect of true facts and documents is a question of law. Determination of nature of trust as wholly religious or wholly charitable or both charitable and religious under Act, 1961 is not a question of fact. It is a question which requires examination of legal effects

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)

4(2) of the Income Tax Act. It was submitted that the ld. AO had taken a wrong interpretation of section 58 and to treat the authority as non-charitable on the basis of the provisions of section 58, was totally incorrect. Furthermore, it was submitted that the registration granted to the assessee under section 12AA, was still in operation

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)

4(2) of the Income Tax Act. It was submitted that the ld. AO had taken a wrong interpretation of section 58 and to treat the authority as non-charitable on the basis of the provisions of section 58, was totally incorrect. Furthermore, it was submitted that the registration granted to the assessee under section 12AA, was still in operation

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)

4(2) of the Income Tax Act. It was submitted that the ld. AO had taken a wrong interpretation of section 58 and to treat the authority as non-charitable on the basis of the provisions of section 58, was totally incorrect. Furthermore, it was submitted that the registration granted to the assessee under section 12AA, was still in operation

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)

4(2) of the Income Tax Act. It was submitted that the ld. AO had taken a wrong interpretation of section 58 and to treat the authority as non-charitable on the basis of the provisions of section 58, was totally incorrect. Furthermore, it was submitted that the registration granted to the assessee under section 12AA, was still in operation

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 but rather was one in violation of section 13(3) of the Act, the claim made by the assessee under section 11 was not maintainable. The ld. AO also made additions on account of depreciation claimed of Rs. 31,53,656/- as per the provisions of section 11(6). The issues of rental income and violation of section

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

4. However, CIT(A) while dealing with various grounds, came to the conclusion that the Respondent was entitled to the exemption under Section 11 of the Act and he accordingly allowed grounds relating to the same. For other grounds of appeal he observed that since the income of the Respondent has to be computed as per Section 11

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

4. However, CIT(A) while dealing with various grounds, came to the conclusion that the Respondent was entitled to the exemption under Section 11 of the Act and he accordingly allowed grounds relating to the same. For other grounds of appeal he observed that since the income of the Respondent has to be computed as per Section 11

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

4. However, CIT(A) while dealing with various grounds, came to the conclusion that the Respondent was entitled to the exemption under Section 11 of the Act and he accordingly allowed grounds relating to the same. For other grounds of appeal he observed that since the income of the Respondent has to be computed as per Section 11

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

4. However, CIT(A) while dealing with various grounds, came to the conclusion that the Respondent was entitled to the exemption under Section 11 of the Act and he accordingly allowed grounds relating to the same. For other grounds of appeal he observed that since the income of the Respondent has to be computed as per Section 11