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

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

2),\n•\nExcess of income over expenditure upto 15% of gross receipts at Rs\n18,18,45,924/- claimed as exempt u/s 11(1) of the Act\n•\npurchase cost of Fixed Assets, during the year under consideration,\naggregating to Rs 14,96,91,583 less depreciation at Rs 1,55, 15,994/-\n•\ncash deposits aggregating

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

14 of the Act gives exclusive right to the Development Authority for development of land in respect of area which has been declared as development area u/s 3. After such declaration no development of land shall be undertaken or carried out or continued in that area by any person or body (including a department of government), unless permission of such

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

14 of the Act gives exclusive right to the Development Authority for development of land in respect of area which has been declared as development area u/s 3. After such declaration no development of land shall be undertaken or carried out or continued in that area by any person or body (including a department of government), unless permission of such

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

14 of the Act gives exclusive right to the Development Authority for development of land in respect of area which has been declared as development area u/s 3. After such declaration no development of land shall be undertaken or carried out or continued in that area by any person or body (including a department of government), unless permission of such

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

14 of the Act gives exclusive right to the Development Authority for development of land in respect of area which has been declared as development area u/s 3. After such declaration no development of land shall be undertaken or carried out or continued in that area by any person or body (including a department of government), unless permission of such

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTI vs. ITO, , BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

disallowance of expenses of Rs.3508236/- by dismissing the appeal. ITA No.295/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 28 3. Because on the whole facts, circumstances of the case and materials on record, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in denying allowability of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)/ 80P(2)(a) (iii) of the Income tax act 1961, in respect of the assessed

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTII vs. ITO, BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

disallowance of expenses of Rs.3508236/- by dismissing the appeal. ITA No.295/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 28 3. Because on the whole facts, circumstances of the case and materials on record, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in denying allowability of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)/ 80P(2)(a) (iii) of the Income tax act 1961, in respect of the assessed

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)

disallowed and why the net profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. 4. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were coordinated and planned development of the city of Moradabad. Its objects were contained

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)

disallowed and why the net profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. 4. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were coordinated and planned development of the city of Moradabad. Its objects were contained

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)

disallowed and why the net profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. 4. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were coordinated and planned development of the city of Moradabad. Its objects were contained

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)

disallowed and why the net profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. 4. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were coordinated and planned development of the city of Moradabad. Its objects were contained

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

2(14)(iii) deals specifically that agricultural land, which falls under municipal limits, that’s why those are capital assets and capital gains on transfer of such land is chargeable to tax. Said situations of capital gains fall under clause (a) of section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

2(14)(iii) deals specifically that agricultural land, which falls under municipal limits, that’s why those are capital assets and capital gains on transfer of such land is chargeable to tax. Said situations of capital gains fall under clause (a) of section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural

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

iii) accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible for registration under section 12A in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble ITAT (iv) in pursuance of the said order dated 25.07.2005, the Ld. CIT had already issued certificate of registration under section 12A dated 28.01.2010 which covers the year under reference also. (v) Further

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

disallowance has been made arbitrarily by application of Rule\n8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii).\n3. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that as per section 144(2) of the Act,\nAssessing Officer is duty bound to record his/her dissatisfaction on correctness\nof claim of assessee before invoking the provision of section 144. As it is\nevident

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

14 of the Constitution and because of this order, since the assessee did \nnot remain a public trust but rather was one in violation of section 13(3) of the Act, the claim \nmade by the assessee under section 11 was not maintainable. The ld. AO also made additions on \naccount of depreciation claimed of Rs.31

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

14 of the Constitution and because of this order, since the assessee did \nnot remain a public trust but rather was one in violation of section 13(3) of the Act, the claim \nmade by the assessee under section 11 was not maintainable. The ld. AO also made additions on \naccount of depreciation claimed of Rs.31

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

14 of the Constitution and because of this order, since the assessee did \nnot remain a public trust but rather was one in violation of section 13(3) of the Act, the claim \nmade by the assessee under section 11 was not maintainable. The ld. AO also made additions on \naccount of depreciation claimed of Rs.31