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

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

charitable trust and no tax benefit could\naccrue on claiming bogus expenditure as the income of the trust was not\nchargeable to tax on account of the availability of exemption under section 11.\nFurthermore, in assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, no\nsuch disallowance had been made. It was further submitted that in the case

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

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

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

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

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 had been utilized for the benefit of persons referred to in sub section 3 of section 13. Therefore, he held that the ld. AO had rightly disallowed the exemption under section 11 and 12 to the assessee and he had rightly assessed the income as taxable business income of the assessee on this account. 25. In his orders

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

trust had been utilized for the benefit \nof persons referred to in sub section 3 of section 13. Therefore, he held that the ld. AO had \nrightly disallowed the exemption under section 11 and 12 to the assessee and he had rightly \nassessed the income as taxable business income of the assessee on this account. \n25. In his orders

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 had been utilized for the benefit \nof persons referred to in sub section 3 of section 13. Therefore, he held that the ld. AO had \nrightly disallowed the exemption under section 11 and 12 to the assessee and he had rightly \nassessed the income as taxable business income of the assessee on this account. \n25. In his orders

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

trust had been utilized for the benefit \nof persons referred to in sub section 3 of section 13. Therefore, he held that the ld. AO had \nrightly disallowed the exemption under section 11 and 12 to the assessee and he had rightly \nassessed the income as taxable business income of the assessee on this account.\n25. In his orders

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

charitable consideration, but rather the utility had been extended to those persons who could afford it. He also observed that the assessee was receiving money from community centers and guest houses, but despite calling for the retail of such receipts, ownership of guest houses etc., none were furnished before him. For the A.Y. 2007-08, the ld. AO also observed

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

charitable consideration, but rather the utility had been extended to those\npersons who could afford it. He also observed that the assessee was receiving\nmoney from community centers and guest houses, but despite calling for the retail\nof such receipts, ownership of guest houses etc., none were furnished before him.\nFor the A.Y. 2007-08, the ld. AO also observed

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

charitable consideration, but rather the utility had been extended to those\npersons who could afford it. He also observed that the assessee was receiving\nmoney from community centers and guest houses, but despite calling for the retail\nof such receipts, ownership of guest houses etc., none were furnished before him.\nFor the A.Y. 2007-08, the ld. AO also observed

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

charitable consideration, but rather the utility had been extended to those\npersons who could afford it. He also observed that the assessee was receiving\nmoney from community centers and guest houses, but despite calling for the retail\nof such receipts, ownership of guest houses etc., none were furnished before him.\nFor the A.Y. 2007-08, the ld. AO also observed

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

charitable consideration, but rather the utility had been extended to those\npersons who could afford it. He also observed that the assessee was receiving\nmoney from community centers and guest houses, but despite calling for the retail\nof such receipts, ownership of guest houses etc., none were furnished before him.\nFor the A.Y. 2007-08, the ld. AO also observed

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

charitable consideration, but rather the utility had been extended to those\npersons who could afford it. He also observed that the assessee was receiving\nmoney from community centers and guest houses, but despite calling for the retail\nof such receipts, ownership of guest houses etc., none were furnished before him.\nFor the A.Y. 2007-08, the ld. AO also observed

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

40,871/-, disallowed by the AO, the order of the CIT(A) is contrary to facts, bad in law and the same be deleted. 2.6.2 GROUNDS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15: 1. Because the entire reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law and be quashed. 02. Because there being neither reason

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

40,871/-, disallowed by the AO, the order of the CIT(A) is contrary to facts, bad in law and the same be deleted. 2.6.2 GROUNDS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15: 1. Because the entire reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law and be quashed. 02. Because there being neither reason