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", "12", "12A

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

12A, to examine the claim of the assessees under sections 11 to 13 and give such treatment to those institutions, as were warranted by the facts of the case. Furthermore, the Court had held that the authorities were always at liberty to cancel the registration under section 12AA(3). Thus the ld. Special Counsel pointed out, that it was established

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

12A, to examine the claim of the assessees under\nsections 11 to 13 and give such treatment to those institutions, as were warranted\nby the facts of the case. Furthermore, the Court had held that the authorities were\nalways at liberty to cancel the registration under section 12AA(3). Thus the ld.\nSpecial Counsel pointed out, that it was established

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

12A. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that the income earned by the Port was deployed for the development of minor ports in the state of Gujarat. Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that u/s 73 of the Gujarat Man time Board Act 1981 all moneys received by or on behalf of the Board were

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

12A. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that the income earned by the Port was deployed for the development of minor ports in the state of Gujarat. Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that u/s 73 of the Gujarat Man time Board Act 1981 all moneys received by or on behalf of the Board were

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-APPEAL, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

12A. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that the income earned by the Port was deployed for the development of minor ports in the state of Gujarat. Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that u/s 73 of the Gujarat Man time Board Act 1981 all moneys received by or on behalf of the Board were

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

12A. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that the income earned by the Port was deployed for the development of minor ports in the state of Gujarat. Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that u/s 73 of the Gujarat Man time Board Act 1981 all moneys received by or on behalf of the Board were

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

12A, to examine the claim of the assessees under\nsections 11 to 13 and give such treatment to those institutions, as were warranted\nby the facts of the case. Furthermore, the Court had held that the authorities were\nalways at liberty to cancel the registration under section 12AA(3). Thus the ld.\nSpecial Counsel pointed out, that it was established

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

12A, to examine the claim of the assessees under\nsections 11 to 13 and give such treatment to those institutions, as were warranted\nby the facts of the case. Furthermore, the Court had held that the authorities were\nalways at liberty to cancel the registration under section 12AA(3). Thus the ld.\nSpecial Counsel pointed out, that it was established

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

12A, to examine the claim of the assessees under\nsections 11 to 13 and give such treatment to those institutions, as were warranted\nby the facts of the case. Furthermore, the Court had held that the authorities were\nalways at liberty to cancel the registration under section 12AA(3). Thus the ld.\nSpecial Counsel pointed out, that it was established

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

12A, to examine the claim of the assessees under\nsections 11 to 13 and give such treatment to those institutions, as were warranted\nby the facts of the case. Furthermore, the Court had held that the authorities were\nalways at liberty to cancel the registration under section 12AA(3). Thus the ld.\nSpecial Counsel pointed out, that it was established