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

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

Charitable Trust that the\nlanguage of section 11(2)(a) as it stood at the time, mandates that the notice\nunder section 10 be specific about the purpose for which the income was being\naccumulated and a reference to the objects of the trust as the purpose for\naccumulation, would not meet the requirements of the said section

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

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

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

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

charitable activities rather there is no obligation on the assessee to spend its earnings for charitable purposes. These authorities have become a great source of earning income in itself and the assessee authority is no exception to it. It is common knowledge/fact that the assessee authority is selling the developed plots on auction to the highest bidder and one such

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

charitable activities rather there is no obligation on the assessee to spend its earnings for charitable purposes. These authorities have become a great source of earning income in itself and the assessee authority is no exception to it. It is common knowledge/fact that the assessee authority is selling the developed plots on auction to the highest bidder and one such

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

charitable activities rather there is no obligation on the assessee to spend its earnings for charitable purposes. These authorities have become a great source of earning income in itself and the assessee authority is no exception to it. It is common knowledge/fact that the assessee authority is selling the developed plots on auction to the highest bidder and one such

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

charitable activities rather there is no obligation on the assessee to spend its earnings for charitable purposes. These authorities have become a great source of earning income in itself and the assessee authority is no exception to it. It is common knowledge/fact that the assessee authority is selling the developed plots on auction to the highest bidder and one such

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

charitable activities rather there is no obligation on the assessee to spend its earnings for charitable purposes. These authorities have become a great source of earning income in itself and the assessee authority is no exception to it. It is common knowledge/fact that the assessee authority is selling the developed plots on auction to the highest bidder and one such

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

charitable activities rather there is no obligation on the assessee to spend its earnings for charitable purposes. These authorities have become a great source of earning income in itself and the assessee authority is no exception to it. It is common knowledge/fact that the assessee authority is selling the developed plots on auction to the highest bidder and one such

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

charitable activities rather there is no obligation on the assessee to spend its earnings for charitable purposes. These authorities have become a great source of earning income in itself and the assessee authority is no exception to it. It is common knowledge/fact that the assessee authority is selling the developed plots on auction to the highest bidder and one such

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

charitable activities rather there is no obligation on the assessee to spend its earnings for charitable purposes. These authorities have become a great source of earning income in itself and the assessee authority is no exception to it. It is common knowledge/fact that the assessee authority is selling the developed plots on auction to the highest bidder and one such

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

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

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

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

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

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