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

4 SCC 724. The word "charity" connotes altruism in thought and action and involves an idea of benefiting others rather than oneself. Supreme goal of all religions is philanthropy which could be manifested in various forms. It has been held that gifts for religious purposes are prima facie gifts for charitable purposes. Court also observed that in Section

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. Section 8 of the UPUPD Act allows the Authority to prepare Master Plan and Zonal Development plan. 5. Such plan needs to be approved by State Government before its execution as per Section 10 of the UPUPD Act. State Government may accept the plan without any modification or with such modification as it may consider necessary or reject

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. Section 8 of the UPUPD Act allows the Authority to prepare Master Plan and Zonal Development plan. 5. Such plan needs to be approved by State Government before its execution as per Section 10 of the UPUPD Act. State Government may accept the plan without any modification or with such modification as it may consider necessary or reject

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. Section 8 of the UPUPD Act allows the Authority to prepare Master Plan and Zonal Development plan. 5. Such plan needs to be approved by State Government before its execution as per Section 10 of the UPUPD Act. State Government may accept the plan without any modification or with such modification as it may consider necessary or reject

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. Section 8 of the UPUPD Act allows the Authority to prepare Master Plan and Zonal Development plan. 5. Such plan needs to be approved by State Government before its execution as per Section 10 of the UPUPD Act. State Government may accept the plan without any modification or with such modification as it may consider necessary or reject

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. Section 8 of the UPUPD Act allows the Authority to prepare Master Plan and Zonal Development plan. 5. Such plan needs to be approved by State Government before its execution as per Section 10 of the UPUPD Act. State Government may accept the plan without any modification or with such modification as it may consider necessary or reject

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)

4(2) of the Income Tax Act. It was submitted that the ld. AO had taken a wrong interpretation of section 58 and to treat the authority as non-charitable on the basis of the provisions of section 58, was totally incorrect. Furthermore, it was submitted that the registration granted to the assessee under section 12AA, was still in operation

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)

4(2) of the Income Tax Act. It was submitted that the ld. AO had taken a wrong interpretation of section 58 and to treat the authority as non-charitable on the basis of the provisions of section 58, was totally incorrect. Furthermore, it was submitted that the registration granted to the assessee under section 12AA, was still in operation

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)

4(2) of the Income Tax Act. It was submitted that the ld. AO had taken a wrong interpretation of section 58 and to treat the authority as non-charitable on the basis of the provisions of section 58, was totally incorrect. Furthermore, it was submitted that the registration granted to the assessee under section 12AA, was still in operation

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)

4(2) of the Income Tax Act. It was submitted that the ld. AO had taken a wrong interpretation of section 58 and to treat the authority as non-charitable on the basis of the provisions of section 58, was totally incorrect. Furthermore, it was submitted that the registration granted to the assessee under section 12AA, was still in operation

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

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State Government was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State Government had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the budget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear that

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

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State Government was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State Government had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the budget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear that

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 trust hitherto enjoying exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. There was a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act in the case of the Podar Education Group on 09.01.2018 wherein the assessee was also covered. A survey action u/s. 133A was also carried out on associated entities/ individuals on the same date and subsequent dates

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 trust hitherto enjoying exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. There was a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act in the case of the Podar Education Group on 09.01.2018 wherein the assessee was also covered. A survey action u/s. 133A was also carried out on associated entities/ individuals on the same date and subsequent dates

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

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State \nGovernment was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State \nGovernment had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the \nbudget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear \nthat

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

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State \nGovernment was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State \nGovernment had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the \nbudget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear \nthat

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

4 ITD 642. b. Karnal Improvement Trust vs. ACIT, 16 taxman.com 63 (ITAT-Del). c. CIT vs. M.CT Muthaiah Family Trust, 245 ITR 400 (Madras). d. Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust vs. ADIT (Exemption) 79 ITD 1 (Del). the ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of accumulation of setting apart the income

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

4 ITD 642. b. Karnal Improvement Trust vs. ACIT, 16 taxman.com 63 (ITAT-Del). c. CIT vs. M.CT Muthaiah Family Trust, 245 ITR 400 (Madras). d. Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust vs. ADIT (Exemption) 79 ITD 1 (Del). the ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of accumulation of setting apart the income