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

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

charitable trust under the provisions of section 11, 12 & 13 and\ntherefore ground number 6 is held to be allowed. Furthermore, since, the\ndisallowance on account of surplus has only been made because of the denial of\nexemption, owing to alleged violation of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s.13(3) and as the\nsaid issue has been decided

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

11 r.w.s.2(15) of the Act. The Hon'ble Court further held that statutory corporations, Boards, authorities, commissions etc., by whatever named called in the fields of housing development, town planning, industrial development sector etc., were involved in the objects of, \"general public utility” and therefore were entitled to be considered as charities in the GPU categories

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

11 r.w.s.2(15) of the Act.\nThe Hon'ble Court further held that statutory corporations, Boards, authorities,\ncommissions etc., by whatever named called in the fields of housing development,\ntown planning, industrial development sector etc., were involved in the objects of,\n\"general public utility” and therefore were entitled to be considered as charities in\nthe GPU categories

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

11 r.w.s.2(15) of the Act.\nThe Hon'ble Court further held that statutory corporations, Boards, authorities,\ncommissions etc., by whatever named called in the fields of housing development,\ntown planning, industrial development sector etc., were involved in the objects of,\n\"general public utility” and therefore were entitled to be considered as charities in\nthe GPU categories

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

11 r.w.s.2(15) of the Act.\nThe Hon'ble Court further held that statutory corporations, Boards, authorities,\ncommissions etc., by whatever named called in the fields of housing development,\ntown planning, industrial development sector etc., were involved in the objects of,\n\"general public utility” and therefore were entitled to be considered as charities in\nthe GPU categories

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

11 r.w.s.2(15) of the Act.\nThe Hon'ble Court further held that statutory corporations, Boards, authorities,\ncommissions etc., by whatever named called in the fields of housing development,\ntown planning, industrial development sector etc., were involved in the objects of,\n\"general public utility” and therefore were entitled to be considered as charities in\nthe GPU categories

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

11 r.w.s.2(15) of the Act.\nThe Hon'ble Court further held that statutory corporations, Boards, authorities,\ncommissions etc., by whatever named called in the fields of housing development,\ntown planning, industrial development sector etc., were involved in the objects of,\n\"general public utility\" and therefore were entitled to be considered as charities in\nthe GPU categories

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

7. The assessee has been granted exemption u/s 12A of the Act being a charitable organization for achievement of advancement of objects of general public utility. The assessee filed returns of income claiming its income as exempt u/s 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption u/s 11 by holding that the assessee was hit by the proviso

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

7. The assessee has been granted exemption u/s 12A of the Act being a charitable organization for achievement of advancement of objects of general public utility. The assessee filed returns of income claiming its income as exempt u/s 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption u/s 11 by holding that the assessee was hit by the proviso

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

7. The assessee has been granted exemption u/s 12A of the Act being a charitable organization for achievement of advancement of objects of general public utility. The assessee filed returns of income claiming its income as exempt u/s 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption u/s 11 by holding that the assessee was hit by the proviso

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)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

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)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation 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)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation 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)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

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

7. As regards other additional grounds of appeal, Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that learned CIT(A), while allowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act, has not considered the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act, which necessitates that the exemption u/s 11 can be granted only if 85% of the surplus, earned during the year, is spent

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

7. As regards other additional grounds of appeal, Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that learned CIT(A), while allowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act, has not considered the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act, which necessitates that the exemption u/s 11 can be granted only if 85% of the surplus, earned during the year, is spent

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

7. As regards other additional grounds of appeal, Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that learned CIT(A), while allowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act, has not considered the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act, which necessitates that the exemption u/s 11 can be granted only if 85% of the surplus, earned during the year, is spent

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

7. As regards other additional grounds of appeal, Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that learned CIT(A), while allowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act, has not considered the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act, which necessitates that the exemption u/s 11 can be granted only if 85% of the surplus, earned during the year, is spent