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. 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

PANKAJ AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. JT.CIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abjfs4912R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr Dr & Sh Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.08.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit (A) Has The Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Loss In Trading In Derivatives Business Treating The Same As Capital Loss, As Against Assessee'S Claim Of Business Loss, To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, Which Order Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Disallowance Made By The Ao & Upheld Be Deleted. 2. Because On A Proper Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also On The Interpretation Of The Provisions Of Sec 43(5), It Would Be Found The Loss Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Trading In Derivative Is Neither A Speculative Loss Nor A Capital Loss, The Same Should Ought To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, The Cit (A) Has Erred, In Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Loss.

disallowance, could be regarded as the satisfaction of the ld. AO for invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. Therefore, he held that the ld. AO had rightly invoked the provisions of section 14A of the Act and he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in this regard. On other issues involved in the assessments

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

disallowing the exemption u/s 11on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not treating the appellant as Charitable Institution, even though the same has already

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

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 for the A.Ys.2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, the ld. CIT(A) traced the \nlegislative history of exemption status of local authorities. He pointed out that

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

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 for the A.Ys.2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, the ld. CIT(A) traced the \nlegislative history of exemption status of local authorities. He pointed out that

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

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 for the A.Ys.2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, the ld. CIT(A) traced the \nlegislative history of exemption status of local authorities. He pointed out that

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

12. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice. 2. Subsequently, the assessee also filed an additional ground of appeal as under:- A.Y. 1995-96 ADDITIONAL GROUND “BECAUSE the notice under section 10 of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 dated 9.2.2001 having been issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.6,95,21,880/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee has procured materials from work contractors and in many cases the transport charges & labour are more than cost of material. 4. The Ld.CIT(A)-2, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

disallowing the exemption\nclaimed by the assessee under the Interest Tax Act and made the following\nadditions to the chargeable interest of the assessee for the A.Y.1995-96;\ni. Interest received on deposits Rs.98,43,985/-\nii. Interest received on loans and others Rs.20,13,599/-\niii. Interest received on UPSEB loan Rs.1,70,17,987/-\niv. Interest received on advances

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

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

10 stating the general purpose for accumulation. We believe the answer to\nthis question lies in the provisions of section 11(3A). Section 11(3A) of the Act\nreads that, where due to circumstances beyond the control of a person in receipt\nof income, which has been invested or deposited in accordance with the\nprovisions of clause

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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

disallowed despite the assessee having been engaged in the education activities, duly and cancellation of registration under section 12A of the Act is subjudice. (iii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings in this regard. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 8. The learned authorities below

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S U.P. Food & Essential Commodities Tax, Range-6, Lucknow Corp. Ltd., 17, Gokhley Marg, Lucknow- 01 Pan: Aaacu3257G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Lucknow Wherein The Ld. Cit(A), Lucknow Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2013-14 On 30.03.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Lucknow Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Disallowance Made On Account Of Claim Of Exemption U/S 10(26Aab) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Does Not Fulfill The Criteria To Claim Exemption U/S 10(26Aab) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeals, As Stated Above, As & When Need To Do So Arises With The Prior Permission Of The Court.” 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is A U.P. Government Enterprise, Claiming Exemption Under Section 10(26Aab) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Ao Was Not Convinced That The Assessee Corporation Was Entitled To Claim The Exemption Under Section 10(26Aab) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Therefore

disallowed the exemption to the assessee corporation and added back a sum of Rs. 23,70,82,707/-. 2 U.P. State Food & Essential Commodities Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 3. Aggrieved with the decision of the ld. AO, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) followed the orders

BALAJI EDUCATIONAL WELFARE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, CPC, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Balaji Educational Welfare V. Assessing Officer, Cpc Society Lucknow-226001. Balaji Public School Near Railway Station Nawabganj, Barabanki-225001. Pan:Aacab8487H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sharad Srivastava, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

disallowed the claim of 10(23C)(iv) claimed by the appellant which is incorrect. This error in filing the ITR is accepted by the appellant in its submission. CPC has rightly acted within its purview of law, as the denial of exemption is due to the error of the appellant in filing of the return. For rectifying the error

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case where the income, not forming part of the total income under this Act, has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation

DCIT, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case where the income, not forming part of the total income under this Act, has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case where the income, not forming part of the total income under this Act, has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation