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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

Section 11(1)(a) Accordingly the addition of Rs.30,48,01,279/- is deleted. Ground no 7 is accordingly allowed and ground no 5 is partly allowed. With regard toground no. 9, the same is rendered infructuous on account of the recognition of the assessee as a public charitable trust

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 vs. ADIT (Exemption) 79 ITD 1 (Del).\nthe ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of accumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of application of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He, therefore, held that if the contention

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

Charitable Trust vs. ADIT (Exemption) 79 ITD 1 (Del).\nthe ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of\naccumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of\napplication of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He,\ntherefore, held that if the contention

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

Charitable Trust vs. ADIT (Exemption) 79 ITD 1 (Del).\nthe ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of\naccumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of\napplication of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He,\ntherefore, held that if the contention

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

Charitable Trust vs. ADIT (Exemption) 79 ITD 1 (Del).\nthe ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of\naccumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of\napplication of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He,\ntherefore, held that if the contention

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

Charitable Trust vs. ADIT (Exemption) 79 ITD 1 (Del).\n\nthe ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of\naccumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of\n\napplication of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He,\ntherefore, held that

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

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

trust engaged in the achievement of object of general public utility in view of the insertion of proviso to section 2(15) with effect from 01/04/2009. It was submitted that Hon'ble Court has held that the Page 13 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose if it involves

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

trust engaged in the achievement of object of general public utility in view of the insertion of proviso to section 2(15) with effect from 01/04/2009. It was submitted that Hon'ble Court has held that the Page 13 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose if it involves

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

trust engaged in the achievement of object of general public utility in view of the insertion of proviso to section 2(15) with effect from 01/04/2009. It was submitted that Hon'ble Court has held that the Page 13 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose if it involves

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)

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 during the relevant previous year and had not been cancelled. Furthermore, the funds of the authority had been invested as per the provisions of section 11(5

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)

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 during the relevant previous year and had not been cancelled. Furthermore, the funds of the authority had been invested as per the provisions of section 11(5

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)

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 during the relevant previous year and had not been cancelled. Furthermore, the funds of the authority had been invested as per the provisions of section 11(5

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)

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 during the relevant previous year and had not been cancelled. Furthermore, the funds of the authority had been invested as per the provisions of section 11(5

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

5. However, at the same point of time, (vide Finance Act, 1983), another amendment was carried out in Section 11 which inserted clause (4A), providing that the exemption to a trust or an institution 6. Thus, the legislative intent was very clear right from the beginning that business and charity cannot go together and if at all a charitable

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

5. However, at the same point of time, (vide Finance Act, 1983), another amendment was carried out in Section 11 which inserted clause (4A), providing that the exemption to a trust or an institution 6. Thus, the legislative intent was very clear right from the beginning that business and charity cannot go together and if at all a charitable

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

5. However, at the same point of time, (vide Finance Act, 1983), another amendment was carried out in Section 11 which inserted clause (4A), providing that the exemption to a trust or an institution 6. Thus, the legislative intent was very clear right from the beginning that business and charity cannot go together and if at all a charitable

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

5. However, at the same point of time, (vide Finance Act, 1983), another amendment was carried out in Section 11 which inserted clause (4A), providing that the exemption to a trust or an institution 6. Thus, the legislative intent was very clear right from the beginning that business and charity cannot go together and if at all a charitable

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

5. However, at the same point of time, (vide Finance Act, 1983), another amendment was carried out in Section 11 which inserted clause (4A), providing that the exemption to a trust or an institution 6. Thus, the legislative intent was very clear right from the beginning that business and charity cannot go together and if at all a charitable