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

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

2) was 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

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 80IB, that the assessee was\nengaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the\nexemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section\n80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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 80IB, that the assessee was\nengaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the\nexemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section\n80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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

section 11, did not consider the findings of the AO with\nrespect to section 11(2), section 13(1)(d) and section 13(3). He has pointed out that\nonce the ld. CIT(A) had held that the income of the assessee should be computed in\nthe manner specified in section 11, taking into account information given in the\naudit

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 80IB, that the assessee was\nengaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the\nexemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section\n80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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 80IB, that the assessee was engaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the exemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section 80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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 80IB, that the assessee was\nengaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the\nexemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section\n80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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 154 of the LT. Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts for disallowing the exemption u's 11

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 154 of the LT. Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts for disallowing the exemption u's 11

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 154 of the LT. Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts for disallowing the exemption u's 11