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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice to the extent stated in the foregoing grounds.” ITA No.21/LKW/2019 1) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by directing the AO to compute the income as per direction given by the CIT(A)-1, Lucknow in the manner specified in section 11

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice to the extent stated in the foregoing grounds.” ITA No.21/LKW/2019 1) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by directing the AO to compute the income as per direction given by the CIT(A)-1, Lucknow in the manner specified in section 11

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

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice to the extent stated in the foregoing grounds.” ITA No.21/LKW/2019 1) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by directing the AO to compute the income as per direction given by the CIT(A)-1, Lucknow in the manner specified in section 11

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice to the extent stated in the foregoing grounds.” ITA No.21/LKW/2019 1) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by directing the AO to compute the income as per direction given by the CIT(A)-1, Lucknow in the manner specified in section 11

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice to the extent stated in the foregoing grounds.” ITA No.21/LKW/2019 1) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by directing the AO to compute the income as per direction given by the CIT(A)-1, Lucknow in the manner specified in section 11

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

6. In the assessment year 2018-19, regarding the issues of addition of Rs.50,48,01,279/- against nil income declared by the assessee, the assessment as an AOP against the status of charitable trust and the addition of excess of income over expenditure amounting to Rs.30,48,01,279/- after denying the assessee the benefit of section 11

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

6 ITA Nos.532 & 533/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.534 & 535/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.21 & 22/LKW/2019 U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and the facts in not dealing with specific items of additions made to the total income with reference to grounds on which such additions where made." 2.1 In ITA No.534/Lkw/2014 and 535/Lkw/2014, the Assessee also subsequently

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed by the ld. AO in accordance with the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act. The ld. CIT observed

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 by the ld. AO in accordance with the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act. The ld. CIT observed

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

section 11(6) of the Act. The ld. CIT observed that as the exemption under \nsection 11 had been disallowed

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

section 11(6) of the Act. The ld. CIT observed that as the exemption under \nsection 11 had been 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 13(3) on the assessee authority, as well as without considering our reply filed in response of notice issued u/s 154 of the LT. Act. 6. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts on both 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 13(3) on the assessee authority, as well as without considering our reply filed in response of notice issued u/s 154 of the LT. Act. 6. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts on both 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 13(3) on the assessee authority, as well as without considering our reply filed in response of notice issued u/s 154 of the LT. Act. 6. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts on both for disallowing the exemption u/s 11

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 13(3) on the assessee authority, as well as without considering our reply filed in response of notice issued u/s 154 of the LT. Act. 6. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts on both for disallowing the exemption u/s 11

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

11,38,89,559/- made on account of various disallowances, as the activities are in the nature of trade, commerce or business and amended provisions of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is squarely applicable in this case. 2. The order of Ld. CIT(A) be cancelled and the order of the A.O. restored.” 6

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

11,38,89,559/- made on account of various disallowances, as the activities are in the nature of trade, commerce or business and amended provisions of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is squarely applicable in this case. 2. The order of Ld. CIT(A) be cancelled and the order of the A.O. restored.” 6

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

11,38,89,559/- made on account of various disallowances, as the activities are in the nature of trade, commerce or business and amended provisions of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is squarely applicable in this case. 2. The order of Ld. CIT(A) be cancelled and the order of the A.O. restored.” 6

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

11,38,89,559/- made on account of various disallowances, as the activities are in the nature of trade, commerce or business and amended provisions of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is squarely applicable in this case. 2. The order of Ld. CIT(A) be cancelled and the order of the A.O. restored.” 6