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

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

18,45,925/-, being 15% of the income derived from the property\nheld in trust that was set apart as per section 11(1)(a), it was argued that the\nsame was not included in the total income of the assessee as per the scheme of\nassessment of 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

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

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

18 of 2006 dated 27.09.2013 and ITA No. 149 of 2009 for AY 2005-06 and ITA No. 60 of 2010 for AY 2006-07 dated 16.09.2013 in its own case that the activities of the assessee are charitable in nature. Learned counsel for the assessee, from the written submissions, invited our attention to the following sections of U.P. Urban

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

18 of 2006 dated 27.09.2013 and ITA No. 149 of 2009 for AY 2005-06 and ITA No. 60 of 2010 for AY 2006-07 dated 16.09.2013 in its own case that the activities of the assessee are charitable in nature. Learned counsel for the assessee, from the written submissions, invited our attention to the following sections of U.P. Urban

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

18 of 2006 dated 27.09.2013 and ITA No. 149 of 2009 for AY 2005-06 and ITA No. 60 of 2010 for AY 2006-07 dated 16.09.2013 in its own case that the activities of the assessee are charitable in nature. Learned counsel for the assessee, from the written submissions, invited our attention to the following sections of U.P. Urban

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

18 of 2006 dated 27.09.2013 and ITA No. 149 of 2009 for AY 2005-06 and ITA No. 60 of 2010 for AY 2006-07 dated 16.09.2013 in its own case that the activities of the assessee are charitable in nature. Learned counsel for the assessee, from the written submissions, invited our attention to the following sections of U.P. Urban

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

18 of 2006 dated 27.09.2013 and ITA No. 149 of 2009 for AY 2005-06 and ITA No. 60 of 2010 for AY 2006-07 dated 16.09.2013 in its own case that the activities of the assessee are charitable in nature. Learned counsel for the assessee, from the written submissions, invited our attention to the following sections of U.P. Urban

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

trust in light of abovementioned judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in its own case since its predominant object are to promote welfare of general public and L.D.A. cannot be compared with and treated like a real estate developer. Treating L.D.A. like a real estate developer will defeat the very purpose of establishing L.D.A

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

trust in light of abovementioned judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in its own case since its predominant object are to promote welfare of general public and L.D.A. cannot be compared with and treated like a real estate developer. Treating L.D.A. like a real estate developer will defeat the very purpose of establishing L.D.A

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

trust in light of abovementioned judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in its own case since its predominant object are to promote welfare of general public and L.D.A. cannot be compared with and treated like a real estate developer. Treating L.D.A. like a real estate developer will defeat the very purpose of establishing L.D.A

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

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

charitable purpose, as these are the alleged bogus transactions- M/s Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society Rs.75,00,000 Podar Education & Sports Trust Rs.50,00,000 Podar Education & Sports Trust Rs.1,50,00,000 Podar Education Trust Rs.1,00,00,000 -------------------- Total Rs.3,75,00,000/- The assessee has discharged its onus of proving the donations during the course of original assessment

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

charitable purpose, as these are the alleged bogus transactions- M/s Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society Rs.75,00,000 Podar Education & Sports Trust Rs.50,00,000 Podar Education & Sports Trust Rs.1,50,00,000 Podar Education Trust Rs.1,00,00,000 -------------------- Total Rs.3,75,00,000/- The assessee has discharged its onus of proving the donations during the course of original assessment

SAYFTY TRUST,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:N.A.

charitable in nature and whether the activities which the Trust proposed to carry on are genuine in the sense that they are in line with the objects of the trust. In Contrast, the position would be different where the Commissioner proposes to cancel the registration of a Trust under sub-section (3) of section 12AA of the Act. There