JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ii) of sub-section (1) of section 32 - Held,\nyes [Para 7] [In favour of assessee]\"\n6.9.5The appellant has placed its reliance in the case of Assistant\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 Nashikv. M/S. JaoraNayagaon\nToll Road Co. Pvt Ltd, inITANos.379&380/PUN/2016 whereby the\nHon'blelTAT 'B' BENCH, Pune vide order dated November 29, 2017 has\nheld:-\n\"10

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

10 | P\na ge shows that the provision pertains to determination of the\nquantum of deductible income in the 'gross total income'. Section\n80AB cannot be read to be curtailing the width of Section 80-IA. It is\nrelevant to take note of Section 80A(1) which stipulates that in\ncomputation of the 'total income' of an assessee, deductions specified

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

ii): Disallows a portion of administrative expenses incurred in\nrelation to managing the investments.\nRule 8D(2)(iii): Disallows a portion of other expenses incurred in relation to\nexempt income.\nThe submission of the assessee that no dividend income was earned from\nthe SPVs is irrelevant in view of the above judicial pronouncements and CBDT\ncircular nol. 05/2014 clarifying

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

In the result, appeals vide I

10 | P\na ge shows that the provision pertains to determination of the\nquantum of deductible income in the 'gross total income'. Section\n80AB cannot be read to be curtailing the width of Section 80-IA. It is\nrelevant to take note of Section 80A(1) which stipulates that in\ncomputation of the 'total income' of an assessee, deductions specified

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 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 8. BECAUSE the provisions as contained in section 12AA (3) do not have any retrospective application and Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in relying, inter alia, on the order dated 29.05.2012 as had been passed by Ld. C.I.T. (I), Lucknow (cancelling the registration under

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 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 8. BECAUSE the provisions as contained in section 12AA (3) do not have any retrospective application and Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in relying, inter alia, on the order dated 29.05.2012 as had been passed by Ld. C.I.T. (I), Lucknow (cancelling the registration under

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 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 8. BECAUSE the provisions as contained in section 12AA (3) do not have any retrospective application and Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in relying, inter alia, on the order dated 29.05.2012 as had been passed by Ld. C.I.T. (I), Lucknow (cancelling the registration under

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

4) I have examined the facts and circumstances of the case. I have examined the findings of the Assessing Officer and the submissions of the appellant. The issue involved is the exemption of Rs. 29,10,000/- claimed by the appellant under section 10(268) of the Act, which reads as under - (268) any income of a corporation established

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

4. However, this condition created some difficulties where the primary object was general public utility, but some incidental activities involved an activity for profit. Under the circumstance, there was an amendment to this sub-section vide Finance Act, 1983 which removed the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit”. The effect of this amendment was that

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

4. However, this condition created some difficulties where the primary object was general public utility, but some incidental activities involved an activity for profit. Under the circumstance, there was an amendment to this sub-section vide Finance Act, 1983 which removed the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit”. The effect of this amendment was that

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

4. However, this condition created some difficulties where the primary object was general public utility, but some incidental activities involved an activity for profit. Under the circumstance, there was an amendment to this sub-section vide Finance Act, 1983 which removed the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit”. The effect of this amendment was that

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

4. However, this condition created some difficulties where the primary object was general public utility, but some incidental activities involved an activity for profit. Under the circumstance, there was an amendment to this sub-section vide Finance Act, 1983 which removed the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit”. The effect of this amendment was that

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

4. However, this condition created some difficulties where the primary object was general public utility, but some incidental activities involved an activity for profit. Under the circumstance, there was an amendment to this sub-section vide Finance Act, 1983 which removed the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit”. The effect of this amendment was that

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

4. However, this condition created some difficulties where the primary object was general public utility, but some incidental activities involved an activity for profit. Under the circumstance, there was an amendment to this sub-section vide Finance Act, 1983 which removed the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit”. The effect of this amendment was that

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

4. However, this condition created some difficulties where the primary object was general public utility, but some incidental activities involved an activity for profit. Under the circumstance, there was an amendment to this sub-section vide Finance Act, 1983 which removed the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit”. The effect of this amendment was that

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

4. However, this condition created some difficulties where the primary object was general public utility, but some incidental activities involved an activity for profit. Under the circumstance, there was an amendment to this sub-section vide Finance Act, 1983 which removed the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit”. The effect of this amendment was that

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

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

ii. Object is town planning and urban development - Section 7 of UPUPDA. iii. Submission of master plan/ zonal plan mandatory for approval from State Government - Section 10 of UPUPDA. iv. Land and buildings cannot be used in contravention of plans- Section 16 of UPUPDA. v. Not a single penny can be used for purpose other than its objects - Section

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

ii. Object is town planning and urban development - Section 7 of UPUPDA. iii. Submission of master plan/ zonal plan mandatory for approval from State Government - Section 10 of UPUPDA. iv. Land and buildings cannot be used in contravention of plans- Section 16 of UPUPDA. v. Not a single penny can be used for purpose other than its objects - Section