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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed the accumulation of Rs. 22,00,00,000/- under section 11(2) of the Act and furthermore added back the same of Rs.14,96,91,583/- claimed as purchase cost of fixed assets and application of income. However, he thereafter allowed a deduction of Rs.1,55, 15,994/-, being the depreciation on the same. The ld. AO also observed

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance and he did not find any reason to interfere with the same. He, therefore, decided these grounds against the assessee in both assessment years. On the issue of rent, rates and taxes in the assessment year 2007-08, the ld. CIT(A) again observed that the assessee had not furnished details before him also during the course of appeals

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance and he did not find any reason to interfere with the same. He, therefore, decided these grounds against the assessee in both assessment years. On the issue of rent, rates and taxes in the assessment year 2007-08, the ld. CIT(A) again observed that the assessee had not furnished details before him also during the course of appeals

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

disallowance and he did not find any reason to interfere with the same. He, therefore, decided these grounds against the assessee in both assessment years. On the issue of rent, rates and taxes in the assessment year 2007-08, the ld. CIT(A) again observed that the assessee had not furnished details before him also during the course of appeals

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance and he did not find any reason to interfere with the same. He, therefore, decided these grounds against the assessee in both assessment years. On the issue of rent, rates and taxes in the assessment year 2007-08, the ld. CIT(A) again observed that the assessee had not furnished details before him also during the course of appeals

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance and he did not find any reason to interfere with the same. He, therefore, decided these grounds against the assessee in both assessment years. On the issue of rent, rates and taxes in the assessment year 2007-08, the ld. CIT(A) again observed that the assessee had not furnished details before him also during the course of appeals

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

disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3,76,07,955/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel

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

disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3,76,07,955/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel

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

disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3,76,07,955/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel

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

disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3,76,07,955/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel