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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we Page 36 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) don’t see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we Page 36 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) don’t see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we Page 36 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) don’t see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we Page 36 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) don’t see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we Page 36 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) don’t see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we Page 36 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) don’t see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

section 8(2) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 disallowing the exemption\nclaimed by the assessee under the Interest Tax Act and made the following\nadditions to the chargeable interest of the assessee for the A.Y.1995-96;\ni. Interest received on deposits Rs.98,43,985/-\nii. Interest received on loans and others Rs.20,13,599/-\niii. Interest received on UPSEB loan

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

section 8(2) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 disallowing the exemption A.Ys. 1995-96 & 1996-97 M/s U.P. State Industrial Development Ltd claimed by the assessee under the Interest Tax Act and made the following additions to the chargeable interest of the assessee for the A.Y.1995-96; i. Interest received on deposits Rs. 98,43,985/- ii. Interest received

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

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowance of Provision for Development expenses of Rs. 2,29,37,07,973/-. 11. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 (I.T.A. No.439) 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowance of Provision for Development expenses of Rs. 2,29,37,07,973/-. 11. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 (I.T.A. No.439) 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowance of Provision for Development expenses of Rs. 2,29,37,07,973/-. 11. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 (I.T.A. No.439) 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowance of Provision for Development expenses of Rs. 2,29,37,07,973/-. 11. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 (I.T.A. No.439) 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowance of Provision for Development expenses of Rs. 2,29,37,07,973/-. 11. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 (I.T.A. No.439) 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we don't see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act.” Page 22 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we don't see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act.” Page 22 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we don't see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act.” Page 22 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM

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