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

b) in view of the fact that after service of notice (in any manner), the appellant had duly participated in the proceedings, there remained no such infirmity either in the notice itself or in the matter of service thereof, which would go to vitiate the assessment itself. 3.3 BECAUSE various case laws as have been referred to and relied upon

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

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

5) of section 11\nof the Act. Rule 17 of Income Tax Rules prescribes the notice as mentioned in sub-\nsection (2) of section 11 of the Act. Form No. 10 prescribes the format of a notice to\nbe given to the prescribed authority conveying the intention and purposes for which\nthe income is to be accumulated or set apart

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

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

section 11(2), while directing the ld. AO to compute the income in the manner provided under section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem to fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings us to additional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered whether

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

b) All moneys borrowed by the Authority from sources other than the State Government by way of loans or debentures; (c) All fees. tolls and charges received by the Authority under this Act; (d) All moneys received by the Authority from the disposal of lands, buildings and other properties, movable and immovable; and (e) All moneys received by the Authority

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

b) All moneys borrowed by the Authority from sources other than the State Government by way of loans or debentures; (c) All fees. tolls and charges received by the Authority under this Act; (d) All moneys received by the Authority from the disposal of lands, buildings and other properties, movable and immovable; and (e) All moneys received by the Authority

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

b) All moneys borrowed by the Authority from sources other than the State Government by way of loans or debentures; (c) All fees. tolls and charges received by the Authority under this Act; (d) All moneys received by the Authority from the disposal of lands, buildings and other properties, movable and immovable; and (e) All moneys received by the Authority

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

b) All moneys borrowed by the Authority from sources other than the State Government by way of loans or debentures; (c) All fees. tolls and charges received by the Authority under this Act; (d) All moneys received by the Authority from the disposal of lands, buildings and other properties, movable and immovable; and (e) All moneys received by the Authority

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

In the result, appeals vide I

2)(iii): Disallows a portion of other expenses incurred in relation to\nexempt income.\n\nThe submission of the assessee that no dividend income was earned from\nthe SPVs is irrelevant in view of the above judicial pronouncements and CBDT\ncircular nol. 05/2014 clarifying the applicability of the disallowance under section\n14A.\n\nThe assessee has argued that the interest

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

b) of sub section (1) read with the\nexplanation to that sub section was not applied, or was not deemed to have been\napplied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year, but\nwas accumulated or set apart for future application, such income so accumulated\nwould not be included in the total income of the previous year

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

b) of sub section (1) read with the\nexplanation to that sub section was not applied, or was not deemed to have been\napplied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year, but\nwas accumulated or set apart for future application, such income so accumulated\nwould not be included in the total income of the previous year

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 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

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 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

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 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

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

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

b) of sub section (1) read with the\nexplanation to that sub section was not applied, or was not deemed to have been\napplied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year, but\nwas accumulated or set apart for future application, such income so accumulated\nwould not be included in the total income of the previous year

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

b) of sub section (1) read with the\n\nexplanation to that sub section was not applied, or was not deemed to have been\napplied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year, but\nwas accumulated or set apart for future application, such income so accumulated\nwould not be included in the total income of the previous

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

2)(iii): Disallows a portion of other expenses incurred in relation to\nexempt income.\nThe submission of the assessee that no dividend income was earned from\nthe SPVs is irrelevant in view of the above judicial pronouncements and CBDT\ncircular nol. 05/2014 clarifying the applicability of the disallowance under section\n14A.\nThe assessee has argued that the interest expense incurred