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

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

disallowed due to lack of specific purpose. Capital expenditure was allowed as application of income. Cash deposits were restored to the AO for re-examination. Additions related to donations to related trusts were partly allowed/deleted based on misinterpretation of Section 13(1)(c).", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "250", "11

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO concluded from the claim of deduction under section

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO\nconcluded from the claim of deduction under section

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO\nconcluded from the claim of deduction under section

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO\nconcluded from the claim of deduction under section

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO\nconcluded from the claim of deduction under section

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO\nconcluded from the claim of deduction under section

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

11 with section 12, 12A and 13 on the grounds that the activities carried on by the appellant were profit making activities not falling under charitable purposes as envisage under section 2(15) of the Income- tax Act. 4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in disallowing

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

11 with section 12, 12A and 13 on the \ngrounds that the activities carried on by the appellant were profit making activities not \nfalling under charitable purposes as envisage under section 2(15) of the Income- tax Act.\n4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in disallowing

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

11 with section 12, 12A and 13 on the \ngrounds that the activities carried on by the appellant were profit making activities not \nfalling under charitable purposes as envisage under section 2(15) of the Income- tax Act. \n4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in disallowing

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

11 with section 12, 12A and 13 on the \ngrounds that the activities carried on by the appellant were profit making activities not \nfalling under charitable purposes as envisage under section 2(15) of the Income- tax Act. \n4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in disallowing

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)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the authority by drawing mis-conclusion of section 13(3) and 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)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the authority by drawing mis-conclusion of section 13(3) and 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)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the authority by drawing mis-conclusion of section 13(3) and 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)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the authority by drawing mis-conclusion of section 13(3) and section

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

section 11(2) of the Act, which necessitates that the exemption u/s 11 can be granted only if 85% of the surplus, earned during the year, is spent on charitable purposes. Learned Special Counsel submitted that this aspect has been totally ignored by both the authorities as the Assessing Officer straightforward disallowed

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

section 11(2) of the Act, which necessitates that the exemption u/s 11 can be granted only if 85% of the surplus, earned during the year, is spent on charitable purposes. Learned Special Counsel submitted that this aspect has been totally ignored by both the authorities as the Assessing Officer straightforward disallowed

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

section 11(2) of the Act, which necessitates that the exemption u/s 11 can be granted only if 85% of the surplus, earned during the year, is spent on charitable purposes. Learned Special Counsel submitted that this aspect has been totally ignored by both the authorities as the Assessing Officer straightforward disallowed

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

section 11(2) of the Act, which necessitates that the exemption u/s 11 can be granted only if 85% of the surplus, earned during the year, is spent on charitable purposes. Learned Special Counsel submitted that this aspect has been totally ignored by both the authorities as the Assessing Officer straightforward disallowed