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

section 10(46) of the Act, introduced by the statute by the Finance Act 2011, the specified income arising to a body or trust or Board or Trust or Commission, which has been established or constituted by a Central or a State Act, for any activity for the benefit of general public and which is not engaged in any commercial

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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

54,446/- as income under head Business & Profession. 9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly confirming the addition of 31,53,656/- made by applying the provisions of section 11(6) of Income-tax Act when more than 85% of income was utilized without considering the depreciation as application

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

54,446/- as income under head Business & Profession. 9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly confirming the addition of 31,53,656/- made by applying the provisions of section 11(6) of Income-tax Act when more than 85% of income was utilized without considering the depreciation as application

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. 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. 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

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

54,446/- as income \nunder head Business & Profession.\n9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in \nwrongly confirming the addition of 31,53,656/- made by applying the provisions of section \n11(6) of Income-tax Act when more than 85% of income was utilized without considering \nthe depreciation as application

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

54,446/- as income \nunder head Business & Profession. \n9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in \nwrongly confirming the addition of 31,53,656/- made by applying the provisions of section \n11(6) of Income-tax Act when more than 85% of income was utilized without considering \nthe depreciation as application

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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

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

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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