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

ii) of the Act, it was not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act on the entire surplus of the assessee amounting to Rs.30,48,01,279/- and therefore, she confirmed this addition also and dismissed the appeal of the assessee trust on these grounds. She also rejected the plea of the assessee that the Assessing Officer

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

35 alongwith Facts & Grounds of Appeal.\n98-123\n7.\nCopy of Replies filed before CIT(Appeal) dt. 04.01.2024 & 15.01.2024\n124-313\n8.\nCopy of 154 Application filed dt. 03.03.2023\n314-316\n9.\nCopy of CIT Appeal order Dt: 18.01.2024\n317-409\n10.\nPOA\n410\nMoreover, the following documents were also filed from the assessee's side:\n(1)\nCBDT Instruction

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

35. Explaining amended provision defining "charitable purpose", Central Board of Direct Taxes, (hereinafter referred to as "CBDT"), has issued Circular No.134/34/2008-TPL (Circular No.11/2008) dated 19th December, 2008. It is clarified therein that proviso to Section 2(15) will not apply to first 3 limbs, namely, relief of the poor, education or medical relief. It will apply only to entities whose

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

35. Explaining amended provision defining "charitable purpose", Central Board of Direct Taxes, (hereinafter referred to as "CBDT"), has issued Circular No.134/34/2008-TPL (Circular No.11/2008) dated 19th December, 2008. It is clarified therein that proviso to Section 2(15) will not apply to first 3 limbs, namely, relief of the poor, education or medical relief. It will apply only to entities whose

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

35. Explaining amended provision defining "charitable purpose", Central Board of Direct Taxes, (hereinafter referred to as "CBDT"), has issued Circular No.134/34/2008-TPL (Circular No.11/2008) dated 19th December, 2008. It is clarified therein that proviso to Section 2(15) will not apply to first 3 limbs, namely, relief of the poor, education or medical relief. It will apply only to entities whose

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

II, Allahabad, ITA 346/Alld/2015 observed as follows:- "15. There is no dispute that the assessee was carrying charitable purpose prior to the insertion of proviso to section 2(15). 16. Since the definition of charitable purpose got amended, it is incumbent on the part of the assessee to prove that it is not hit Page 39 of 242 (UP AWAS

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

II, Allahabad, ITA 346/Alld/2015 observed as follows:- "15. There is no dispute that the assessee was carrying charitable purpose prior to the insertion of proviso to section 2(15). 16. Since the definition of charitable purpose got amended, it is incumbent on the part of the assessee to prove that it is not hit Page 39 of 242 (UP AWAS

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

II, Allahabad, ITA 346/Alld/2015 observed as follows:- "15. There is no dispute that the assessee was carrying charitable purpose prior to the insertion of proviso to section 2(15). 16. Since the definition of charitable purpose got amended, it is incumbent on the part of the assessee to prove that it is not hit Page 39 of 242 (UP AWAS

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

II, Allahabad, ITA 346/Alld/2015 observed as follows:- "15. There is no dispute that the assessee was carrying charitable purpose prior to the insertion of proviso to section 2(15). 16. Since the definition of charitable purpose got amended, it is incumbent on the part of the assessee to prove that it is not hit Page 39 of 242 (UP AWAS

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

II, Allahabad, ITA 346/Alld/2015 observed as follows:- "15. There is no dispute that the assessee was carrying charitable purpose prior to the insertion of proviso to section 2(15). 16. Since the definition of charitable purpose got amended, it is incumbent on the part of the assessee to prove that it is not hit Page 39 of 242 (UP AWAS

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

II, Allahabad, ITA 346/Alld/2015 observed as follows:- "15. There is no dispute that the assessee was carrying charitable purpose prior to the insertion of proviso to section 2(15). 16. Since the definition of charitable purpose got amended, it is incumbent on the part of the assessee to prove that it is not hit Page 39 of 242 (UP AWAS

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

II, Allahabad, ITA 346/Alld/2015 observed as follows:- "15. There is no dispute that the assessee was carrying charitable purpose prior to the insertion of proviso to section 2(15). 16. Since the definition of charitable purpose got amended, it is incumbent on the part of the assessee to prove that it is not hit Page 39 of 242 (UP AWAS

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

II, Allahabad, ITA 346/Alld/2015 observed as follows:- "15. There is no dispute that the assessee was carrying charitable purpose prior to the insertion of proviso to section 2(15). 16. Since the definition of charitable purpose got amended, it is incumbent on the part of the assessee to prove that it is not hit Page 39 of 242 (UP AWAS

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 or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous year— (i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February, 1983 otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; or (ii) any funds

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 or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous year— (i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February, 1983 otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; or (ii) any funds

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

ii)the Hon’ble ITAT in its own case, in ITA No. 686/Luc/06, order dated 25.07.2005 has already held that the object of the appellant are the objects of General Public Utility falling in the definition of charitable purposes as given in section 2(15) of the I.T. Act (iii)accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible

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

ii)the Hon’ble ITAT in its own case, in ITA No. 686/Luc/06, order dated 25.07.2005 has already held that the object of the appellant are the objects of General Public Utility falling in the definition of charitable purposes as given in section 2(15) of the I.T. Act (iii)accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible

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

ii)the Hon’ble ITAT in its own case, in ITA No. 686/Luc/06, order dated 25.07.2005 has already held that the object of the appellant are the objects of General Public Utility falling in the definition of charitable purposes as given in section 2(15) of the I.T. Act (iii)accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible

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

ii)the Hon’ble ITAT in its own case, in ITA No. 686/Luc/06, order dated 25.07.2005 has already held that the object of the appellant are the objects of General Public Utility falling in the definition of charitable purposes as given in section 2(15) of the I.T. Act (iii)accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible