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

property shall be used for "charitable purposes" but would vest in State Government. These observations are in the teeth of what has been observed by Constitution Bench in Ramtanu Cooperative Housing Society Limited (supra). 64. CIT (E) then tried to involve itself with Section 10

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

property shall be used for "charitable purposes" but would vest in State Government. These observations are in the teeth of what has been observed by Constitution Bench in Ramtanu Cooperative Housing Society Limited (supra). 64. CIT (E) then tried to involve itself with Section 10

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

property shall be used for "charitable purposes" but would vest in State Government. These observations are in the teeth of what has been observed by Constitution Bench in Ramtanu Cooperative Housing Society Limited (supra). 64. CIT (E) then tried to involve itself with Section 10

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

10%. \n\n3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in \ndeleting the addition of Rs.37,00,000/- on account of investment in new house property situated at \nLucknow without appreciating the fact that the assessee had ownership of more than \ntwo house property, other than the new investment in house property

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

properties of the\nUPSIDC continued to remain with it till that date and business continued to be\nperformed by the UPSIDC, prior to 2013. Thus, the arguments were summed up by\nstating that the assessee did not fall within the ambit of section 2(5A)(iv) r.w.s.\n2(5B) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 and the interest earned

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

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. 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

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT, (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

10%.\n\n3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.68,98,817/- being disallowance of deduction claimed u/s\n54F of the Act, 1961 on account of investment in new house property situated at\nLucknow without appreciating that the assessee had ownership of more than\nthree properties

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

10 of UPUPDA. iv. Land and buildings cannot be used in contravention of plans- Section 16 of UPUPDA. v. Not a single penny can be used for purpose other than its objects - Section 20 UPDA. vi. Ultimate Power/ Control vest in the hands of State Government – Section 29 and Section 41. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 22 vii. State

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

10 of UPUPDA. iv. Land and buildings cannot be used in contravention of plans- Section 16 of UPUPDA. v. Not a single penny can be used for purpose other than its objects - Section 20 UPDA. vi. Ultimate Power/ Control vest in the hands of State Government – Section 29 and Section 41. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 22 vii. State

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

10 of UPUPDA. iv. Land and buildings cannot be used in contravention of plans- Section 16 of UPUPDA. v. Not a single penny can be used for purpose other than its objects - Section 20 UPDA. vi. Ultimate Power/ Control vest in the hands of State Government – Section 29 and Section 41. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 22 vii. State

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

10 of UPUPDA. iv. Land and buildings cannot be used in contravention of plans- Section 16 of UPUPDA. v. Not a single penny can be used for purpose other than its objects - Section 20 UPDA. vi. Ultimate Power/ Control vest in the hands of State Government – Section 29 and Section 41. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 22 vii. State

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

10 of UPUPDA. iv. Land and buildings cannot be used in contravention of plans- Section 16 of UPUPDA. v. Not a single penny can be used for purpose other than its objects - Section 20 UPDA. vi. Ultimate Power/ Control vest in the hands of State Government – Section 29 and Section 41. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 22 vii. State

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

housing boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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

housing boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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

housing boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted