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

7) of the Act. 10. BECAUSE in any case the issue with regard to the applicability of charging provisions (as distinct from the applicability of Interest Tax Act, 1974 itself) has been decided on a wholly wrong premise and the sums aggregating Rs. 11,75,75,706/- can not be said to be representing "chargeable interest" under

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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

7. (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned authorities below have erred, both on facts and in law, in adding the excess of income over expenditure amounting to Rs.30,48,01,279 in the income of the assessee, thereby denying it the exemption under Section 11 of the Act. (ii) That the exemption under section

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

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. Learned Special Counsel for the Revenue was first asked to proceed

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

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. Learned Special Counsel for the Revenue was first asked to proceed

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

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. Learned Special Counsel for the Revenue was first asked to proceed

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

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. Learned Special Counsel for the Revenue was first asked to proceed

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

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. Learned Special Counsel for the Revenue was first asked to proceed

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

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. Learned Special Counsel for the Revenue was first asked to proceed

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

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. Learned Special Counsel for the Revenue was first asked to proceed

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

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. Learned Special Counsel for the Revenue was first asked to proceed

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

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

2, Hoogly in ITA no. 1695 (Kol) of 2012, has also held that the\npayment made by one trust to another as donation, does not fall in any of the\ncategories of section 13(3). That section only refers to payments to individuals,\ntheir relatives or concerns in which they have substantial interest .Further the\nKolkata bench has held

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

Section 2(15) of the Act as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2016 made an addition of business profit at Rs.3,32,79,731/-. Further, the Assessing Authority 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

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

Section 2(15) of the Act as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2016 made an addition of business profit at Rs.3,32,79,731/-. Further, the Assessing Authority 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

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

Section 2(15) of the Act as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2016 made an addition of business profit at Rs.3,32,79,731/-. Further, the Assessing Authority 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

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

Section 2(15) of the Act as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2016 made an addition of business profit at Rs.3,32,79,731/-. Further, the Assessing Authority 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

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

7. Section 16 of UPUPD Act prohibits the usage of land acquired the authority for any person other than the approved plan. 8. Section 17 and 18 of UPUPD Act provides the procedure and power for acquisition and disposal of land acquired for development. 9. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of UPUPD Act debars the Authority to apply

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

7. Section 16 of UPUPD Act prohibits the usage of land acquired the authority for any person other than the approved plan. 8. Section 17 and 18 of UPUPD Act provides the procedure and power for acquisition and disposal of land acquired for development. 9. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of UPUPD Act debars the Authority to apply

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

7. Section 16 of UPUPD Act prohibits the usage of land acquired the authority for any person other than the approved plan. 8. Section 17 and 18 of UPUPD Act provides the procedure and power for acquisition and disposal of land acquired for development. 9. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of UPUPD Act debars the Authority to apply