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 13(3) of the Income Tax Act in his order dated 22/02/2019, while allowing the appeal to the assessee without going into the fact that there was no additional facts were available than the facts at the time of passing of original order dated 22/02/2019. 4. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law for confirming the disallowance

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 13(3) of the Income Tax Act in his order dated 22/02/2019, while allowing the appeal to the assessee without going into the fact that there was no additional facts were available than the facts at the time of passing of original order dated 22/02/2019. 4. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law for confirming the disallowance

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 13(3) of the Income Tax Act in his order dated 22/02/2019, while allowing the appeal to the assessee without going into the fact that there was no additional facts were available than the facts at the time of passing of original order dated 22/02/2019. 4. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law for confirming the disallowance

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

3.(10). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board 295 ITR 561 has held that where the assessee was under a legal obligation to apply its income which was directly and substantially from ITA. Nos.232 to 235/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 22 the business held under trust for the development of minor ports

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

3.(10). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board 295 ITR 561 has held that where the assessee was under a legal obligation to apply its income which was directly and substantially from ITA. Nos.232 to 235/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 22 the business held under trust for the development of minor ports

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

3.(10). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board 295 ITR 561 has held that where the assessee was under a legal obligation to apply its income which was directly and substantially from ITA. Nos.232 to 235/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 22 the business held under trust for the development of minor ports

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

3.(10). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board 295 ITR 561 has held that where the assessee was under a legal obligation to apply its income which was directly and substantially from ITA. Nos.232 to 235/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 22 the business held under trust for the development of minor ports

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

4:- (i) That the exemption under section 11 of the Act has been disallowed despite the assessee having been engaged in the education activities, duly registered under section 12A of he Act. (ii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

4:- (i) That the exemption under section 11 of the Act has been disallowed despite the assessee having been engaged in the education activities, duly registered under section 12A of he Act. (ii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3

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

4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the exemption u/s 11on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3

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

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State \nGovernment was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State \nGovernment had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the \nbudget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear \nthat

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

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State \nGovernment was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State \nGovernment had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the \nbudget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear \nthat

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

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State \nGovernment was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State \nGovernment had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the \nbudget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear \nthat

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

3)/153A of the Act on 30.3.2016 at a total income of Rs.61,84,13,530/-, making various disallowances/ additions and also disallowing claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), vide his impugned order, dated 10.11.2016, allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IA of the Act, relying on various judicial

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

3 will apply, as if the purpose specified by such a person in the application under this sub section, were a purpose specified in the notice given to the ld. AO under clause (a) of sub section (2). Thus, from a plain reading of section 11(3A), it becomes clear that specificity of purpose is mandatorily required

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

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

3 will apply, as if the purpose specified by such a person\nin the application under this sub section, were a purpose specified in the notice\ngiven to the ld. AO under clause (a) of sub section (2). Thus, from a plain reading\nof section 11(3A), it becomes clear that specificity of purpose is mandatorily\nrequired

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

3) and sustained by\nCIT(A) Order dt.\n19/12/2023 and disputed\nbefore Hon'ble ITAT (ITA-\n17/LKW/2020).\nCIT(A) has provided relief and\nrestricted the disallowances to\nthe extent of Rs.59619661/-\nremaining deduction of Rs.\n3164146/- is sustained\nconsidering the earlier order of\nCIT(A) dt. 19/12/2023.\n[Para 8.16 Page 102]\nAppeal filed by\nAssessee\nITA\n17/LKW/2024 &\nCO1/LKW/2025\n07.01.2025

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

3 of the Adhiniyam provides for the functions of the Parishad, which are also the objects of the assessee parishad. After abolition of section 10(20A) of the Act w.e.f. 1.04.2003, the assessee applied for registration under section 12AA of the Act, which was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow. Subsequently, in pursuance of directions by the ITAT