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

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

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

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, in as much as the original assessment order dated 11-02-2016 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in not passing an speaking order ignoring the submissions made by the assessee during proceeding u/s 263 rendering the order under appeal

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

23-12-2019\nagainst notice u/s 142(1) dated 16-12-2019\n444-449\n\n8.\nCopy of notice u/s 250 dated 27-8-2020\n450-451\n\n9.\nCopy of Submissions filed before CIT(Appeals)\n452-476\n\n(A.3) Written submissions were filed from Revenue side, relevant portion of\nwhich is reproduced as under:\n\nBEFORE

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

23,742/- has escaped from assessment within the meaning of section 10 of the Interest Tax Act. Issue notice u/s 10 of the Interest Tax Act to the assessee for above mentioned escaping interest income." as given by the learned ACIT, do not constitute the requisite material for initiating the proceedings under section 10 (a) of the Act and view

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

C of\nChapter VI-A is with respect only to computation of deduction on the\nbasis of 'net income'.\n10. Sub-section (1) and sub-section (5) of Section 80-IA which are\nrelevant for these Appeals are as under:\n“80-IA. Deductions in respect of profits and gains from\nindustrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure\ndevelopment

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

C of\nChapter VI-A is with respect only to computation of deduction on the\nbasis of 'net income'.\n\n10. Sub-section (1) and sub-section (5) of Section 80-IA which are\nrelevant for these Appeals are as under:\n\n“80-IA. Deductions in respect of profits and gains from\nindustrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure

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

23,742/-\nhas escaped from assessment within the meaning of section 10 of the Interest Tax\nAct. Issue notice u/s 10 of the Interest Tax Act to the assessee for above mentioned\nescaping interest income.\"\nas given by the learned ACIT, do not constitute the requisite material for initiating\nthe proceedings under section 10 (a) of the Act and view

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

23 561/under section 14A\nof the Act 1961:\nThe AO while dealing with the issue has held as under:\n8. Further, it was found that the assessee has made investments in quoted\nand unquoted shares of different companies amounting to\nRs.3,66,30,000/- and from the income from business, he had deducted an\namount of Rs.6,10

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

disallowed and why the net profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were the coordinated and planned development of the historical cities of Ayodhya and Faizabad. It further

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 and why the \nnet profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. In response, the assessee submitted that its \nactivities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its \ncase because its aims were the coordinated and planned development of the historical cities of \nAyodhya and Faizabad. It further

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

disallowed and why the \nnet profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. In response, the assessee submitted that its \nactivities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its \ncase because its aims were the coordinated and planned development of the historical cities of \nAyodhya and Faizabad. It further

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

disallowed and why the \nnet profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. In response, the assessee submitted that its \nactivities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its \ncase because its aims were the coordinated and planned development of the historical cities of \nAyodhya and Faizabad. It further

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

23,46,666/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact

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

23,46,666/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact

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

23,46,666/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact

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

23,46,666/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact

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

23,46,666/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact