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

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

4 crores\nhad been made ) was to establish and support educational institutions like\nManagement Colleges, Engineering Colleges and other Professional Colleges.\nFurthermore, that trust was not maintaining / running any hospital since its\ninception till date. The ld. AO had also pointed out that the donation received\nfrom the assessee trust had not been utilized fully by the donee trust

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

4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in denying exemption under section 11read with section 12, 12A and 13 on the grounds that the activities carried on by the appellant were profit making activities not falling under charitable purposes as envisage under section 2(15) of the Income- tax Act. 5. That

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

4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in denying exemption under section 11read with section 12, 12A and 13 on the grounds that the activities carried on by the appellant were profit making activities not falling under charitable purposes as envisage under section 2(15) of the Income- tax Act. 5. That

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

4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in denying exemption under section 11read with section 12, 12A and 13 on the grounds that the activities carried on by the appellant were profit making activities not falling under charitable purposes as envisage under section 2(15) of the Income- tax Act. 5. That

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

4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in denying exemption under section 11read with section 12, 12A and 13 on the grounds that the activities carried on by the appellant were profit making activities not falling under charitable purposes as envisage under section 2(15) of the Income- tax Act. 5. That

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

4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in denying exemption under section 11read with section 12, 12A and 13 on the grounds that the activities carried on by the appellant were profit making activities not falling under charitable purposes as envisage under section 2(15) of the Income- tax Act. 5. That

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

charitable purposes, when subsequently it is found that its income either enures or is used or applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person specified under sub-section (3) of section 13, then such trust becomes disentitled to claim any exemption under section 11. But the list of such persons as contained under section 13(3 ) does

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

charitable purposes, when subsequently it is found that its income either enures or is used or applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person specified under sub-section (3) of section 13, then such trust becomes disentitled to claim any exemption under section 11. But the list of such persons as contained under section 13(3 ) does

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

charitable purposes, when subsequently it is found that its income either enures or is used or applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person specified under sub-section (3) of section 13, then such trust becomes disentitled to claim any exemption under section 11. But the list of such persons as contained under section 13(3 ) does

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

section 148 by the learned AO is without jurisdiction, bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 1.1 The assessee trust was formed on 17.10.2012 and it was constructing hospital building for charitable purpose at rural area of Dist. Shahjahapur. Since inception of the trust and during financial year 2013-14 relevant to Assessment year

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

section 148 by the learned AO is without jurisdiction, bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 1.1 The assessee trust was formed on 17.10.2012 and it was constructing hospital building for charitable purpose at rural area of Dist. Shahjahapur. Since inception of the trust and during financial year 2013-14 relevant to Assessment year

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

charitable object within the meaning of section 2(15) and the proviso to section 2(15) 1s not applicable because assessee Authority 1s not carrying out activity with any profit motive but the predominant object is welfare of people at large. (4) As per the Case of Haridwar Development Authority vs. Ld. CIT Hon'ble {TAT follow the decision taken

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-APPEAL, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

charitable object within the meaning of section 2(15) and the proviso to section 2(15) 1s not applicable because assessee Authority 1s not carrying out activity with any profit motive but the predominant object is welfare of people at large. (4) As per the Case of Haridwar Development Authority vs. Ld. CIT Hon'ble {TAT follow the decision taken

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

charitable object within the meaning of section 2(15) and the proviso to section 2(15) 1s not applicable because assessee Authority 1s not carrying out activity with any profit motive but the predominant object is welfare of people at large. (4) As per the Case of Haridwar Development Authority vs. Ld. CIT Hon'ble {TAT follow the decision taken

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

charitable object within the meaning of section 2(15) and the proviso to section 2(15) 1s not applicable because assessee Authority 1s not carrying out activity with any profit motive but the predominant object is welfare of people at large. (4) As per the Case of Haridwar Development Authority vs. Ld. CIT Hon'ble {TAT follow the decision taken

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.

4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A [as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996)] and subsequently it is noticed that