BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

51 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 12A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai338Pune312Ahmedabad225Delhi223Kolkata160Jaipur159Chennai154Bangalore142Hyderabad103Surat55Indore53Lucknow51Chandigarh47Cuttack39Calcutta37Rajkot36Nagpur35Visakhapatnam33Amritsar31Cochin29Karnataka24Raipur15Jodhpur15Patna13Panaji10Allahabad7Guwahati6Agra6Jabalpur5Ranchi3Dehradun3Himachal Pradesh2Varanasi2SC2Andhra Pradesh1Telangana1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 12A118Section 1181Exemption47Section 2(15)30Section 143(1)27Condonation of Delay26Section 12A(1)(ac)24Addition to Income24Section 154

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS SPORTS ASSOCIATION,UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 278/LKW/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2023-24 Chartered Accountants Sports Commissioner Of Income Tax Association, B-2/878, Vinay Vs. (Exemptions), Lucknow Khand Gomtinagar, Lucknow- 226010, U.P. Pan:Aaeac2488B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aakash Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 7.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Exemptions), Under Section 12Ab(1) (B) (Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee Dated 26.09.2022 For Registration Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(V) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(Exemptions) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Rejecting The Application Filed In Form 10Ab Under Sub Clause (V) Of Clause (Ac) Of Sub-Section 1 Of Section 12A Due To Modification In Objects To The Assessee Society By Holding That Form 10Ac Is Valid For Five Years From Ay 2022-23 To Ay 2026-27 Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Had Filed Application Within 30 Days From The Date Of Adoption/Modification Of The Objects Of The Society. 2. That The Ld. Cit(Exemptions) Has Erred In Law By Inadvertently Invoking Sub Clause (Iii) Of Clause (Ac) Of Sub-Section 1 Of Section 12A Inpsite Of The 1 A.Y. 2023-24 Chartered Accountants Sports Association Fact That Its Mentioned In Para 1 Of Order That Said Application Is Filed Under Sub Clause (V) Of Clause (Ac) Of Sub-Section 1 Of Section 12A. Therefore, Rejection Of Registration U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(V) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Not Correct & The Registration Should Be Granted. 3. That The Assessee Craves Leave To Add / Alter Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Aakash Agrawal, C.A

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3

23
Natural Justice18
Section 119(2)(b)15
Section 80G(5)14
For Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 1Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 154

12A(1)(ac)(v) and therefore, the rejection order passed by the ld. CIT(Exemptions) was passed under mistaken appreciation of facts. However, it is submitted before us that no order has been received in response to the said application under section 154. In view of the fact that the application was not disposed, the assessee filed an appeal against

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

ITA 165/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in having failed to consider the provisions contained in Section 13(8) introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to take into account the fact that the Assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Section 11 during the year

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

ITA 701/LKW/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in having failed to consider the provisions contained in Section 13(8) introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to take into account the fact that the Assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Section 11 during the year

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

ITA 166/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in having failed to consider the provisions contained in Section 13(8) introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to take into account the fact that the Assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Section 11 during the year

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1071/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

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

ITA 1072/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

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)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

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

ITA 273/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

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

ITA 1073/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

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

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 653/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44A

12A of the "ACT" within the prescribed due date. 8. BECAUSE issue of allowability/dis-allowability of claim of exemption u/s 11 of the "Act" due to non-filing of audit report within the prescribed due date, being debatable, was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) of the "Act" and consequently the "AddI/JCIT(A)" ought to have deleted

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURE DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 652/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44A

12A of the "ACT" within the prescribed due date. 8. BECAUSE issue of allowability/dis-allowability of claim of exemption u/s 11 of the "Act" due to non-filing of audit report within the prescribed due date, being debatable, was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) of the "Act" and consequently the "AddI/JCIT(A)" ought to have deleted

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 651/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44A

12A of the "ACT" within the prescribed due date. 8. BECAUSE issue of allowability/dis-allowability of claim of exemption u/s 11 of the "Act" due to non-filing of audit report within the prescribed due date, being debatable, was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) of the "Act" and consequently the "AddI/JCIT(A)" ought to have deleted

M/S HINDUSTAN SEVA TRUST,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 390/LKW/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

delay in filing of both appeals on account of ignorance of the passing of orders, is hereby condoned. 3. The facts of the case are, that the assessee filed an application dated 13.08.2022 for registration under section 12A(1

M/S HINDUSTAN SEVA TRUST,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/LKW/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

delay in filing of both appeals on account of ignorance of the passing of orders, is hereby condoned. 3. The facts of the case are, that the assessee filed an application dated 13.08.2022 for registration under section 12A(1

ARPIT KUMAR TOMAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 250/LKW/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Arpit Kumar Tomar Income Tax Officer V. Flat No.B3, B21, Krishna 6(1), Lucknow, Uttar Garden, Sadarpur, Ghaziabad, Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh-201021. Pan:Ajbpt8004B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. Balaji, Fca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V. Balaji, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

12A shall be in Form No.108. In other words, where the total income of the trust or institute as computed under the Act without giving effect to the provisions of section 11 and section 12 exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax in any previous year. The accounts of the trust or institution for that year

CHARAK HELTH CARE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 412/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Suyash Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vachaspati Tripathi, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

condonation of delay in filing First Appeal. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) is violative of the principles of natural justice and without considering the peculiar facts of the case and grievous loss caused to the Appellant on account of technical errors. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in computing the period of delay in filing First

CENTRAL METHODIST CHURCH,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 105/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, CIT DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 250

section 2 Central Methodist Church A.Y. 2022-23 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, whereas the assessee had duly filed the Form No. 10B on 7.11.2022. It was pointed out that a petition for condonation of delay

M/S U.P HINDI SANSTHAN,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Commissioner Of Income V. 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg Road, Tax (Exemptions) Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001. T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaau1297Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Tax (Exemptions) 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, 226001. Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaju0103A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 254(3)

1 Written Submission 2 Order of 12A Registration Order 3 Application for Condonation of Delay filed before CIT(Exemption) Lucknow with Resolution and Copy of Form 10 4 Copy of CIT Order for Rejecting Connotation of Delay 5 Copy of Order of CIT Appeal (4) dated 15.02.2019 6 Copy of Circular 7/2018 5. At the time of hearing before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P HINDI SANSTHAN, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Commissioner Of Income V. 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg Road, Tax (Exemptions) Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001. T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaau1297Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Tax (Exemptions) 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, 226001. Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaju0103A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 254(3)

1 Written Submission 2 Order of 12A Registration Order 3 Application for Condonation of Delay filed before CIT(Exemption) Lucknow with Resolution and Copy of Form 10 4 Copy of CIT Order for Rejecting Connotation of Delay 5 Copy of Order of CIT Appeal (4) dated 15.02.2019 6 Copy of Circular 7/2018 5. At the time of hearing before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. VYAVSAYIK PARIKSHA PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 571/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Cit (Exemptions) V. M/S Vyavsayik Pariksha Parishad Lucknow 2, Aliganj Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaatv9447J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Abha Kala Chanda, Cit (Dr) Respondent By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 17 08 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 09 2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Abha Kala Chanda, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 121Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(4)

condoning the delay in filing Form no. 10B, by the ld. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow. 6. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The provisions of section 11(1), as applicable for assessment year 2016-17, i.e., the year under consideration, exclude, subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63 of the Act, from

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P FOREST CORPORATION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 574/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2016-17

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

1 U.P. Forest Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-lax, settled that U.P. Forest Corporation is eligible for grant of certificate under Section 12-A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. In view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court there appears to be no justification to admit the appeal on the same issue