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

27 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 12A and 12AA. Revenue came in appeal to High Court which held that the findings of Tribunal are factual. However, Section 13(1)(b) would not be applicable to DBJ as trust is not created or established for benefit of any particular religious community or caste. Consequently, Revenue's appeal was rejected

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2

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

2% reservation in allotment is provided to employees of assessee authority and employee does not come under purview of section 13(3) as held by Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Tata Steel Charitable Trust reported in [1995] 78 taxman 98 (Pat.). It was submitted that Assessing Officer himself, in assessment

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

2% reservation in allotment is provided to employees of assessee authority and employee does not come under purview of section 13(3) as held by Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Tata Steel Charitable Trust reported in [1995] 78 taxman 98 (Pat.). It was submitted that Assessing Officer himself, in assessment

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

2% reservation in allotment is provided to employees of assessee authority and employee does not come under purview of section 13(3) as held by Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Tata Steel Charitable Trust reported in [1995] 78 taxman 98 (Pat.). It was submitted that Assessing Officer himself, in assessment

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

2% reservation in allotment is provided to employees of assessee authority and employee does not come under purview of section 13(3) as held by Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Tata Steel Charitable Trust reported in [1995] 78 taxman 98 (Pat.). It was submitted that Assessing Officer himself, in assessment

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

2% reservation in allotment is provided to employees of assessee authority and employee does not come under purview of section 13(3) as held by Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Tata Steel Charitable Trust reported in [1995] 78 taxman 98 (Pat.). It was submitted that Assessing Officer himself, in assessment

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

27 Assessment year:2012-13 Mere selling some product at a profit will not ipso facto hit assessee by applying proviso to Section 2(15) and deny exemption available under Section 11. The intention of the trustees and the manner in which the activities of the charitable trust institution are undertaken are highly relevant to decide the issue of applicability

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

27 Assessment year:2012-13 Mere selling some product at a profit will not ipso facto hit assessee by applying proviso to Section 2(15) and deny exemption available under Section 11. The intention of the trustees and the manner in which the activities of the charitable trust institution are undertaken are highly relevant to decide the issue of applicability

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

27 Assessment year:2012-13 Mere selling some product at a profit will not ipso facto hit assessee by applying proviso to Section 2(15) and deny exemption available under Section 11. The intention of the trustees and the manner in which the activities of the charitable trust institution are undertaken are highly relevant to decide the issue of applicability

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

d) and violation of section 13(3), rendered the 26 ITA Nos.532 & 533/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.534 & 535/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.21 & 22/LKW/2019 U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad orders of the ld. CIT(A) as bad in law, because the ld. CIT(A) could not have passed an order that an institution was charitable in nature, without insisting on the compliance to the essential