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

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

property\nheld in trust that was set apart as per section 11(1)(a), it was argued that the\nsame was not included in the total income of the assessee as per the scheme of\nassessment of charitable trusts. The disallowance had only been made because the\nregistration of the assessee had been cancelled but once the registration had been

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 of the Act, on account of enquiries made by the ld. AO which showed that the activities of the said assessee were not charitable. The ld. AO observed that a large surplus has been generated from the sale of properties, interest had been taken on payment of installments which also included penal interest on all kinds of properties

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

section 11 of the Act, on account of enquiries made by the ld. AO\nwhich showed that the activities of the said assessee were not charitable. The ld. AO\nobserved that a large surplus has been generated from the sale of properties,\ninterest had been taken on payment of installments which also included penal\ninterest on all kinds of properties

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

section 11 of the Act, on account of enquiries made by the ld. AO\nwhich showed that the activities of the said assessee were not charitable. The ld. AO\nobserved that a large surplus has been generated from the sale of properties,\ninterest had been taken on payment of installments which also included penal\ninterest on all kinds of properties

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

section 11 of the Act, on account of enquiries made by the ld. AO\nwhich showed that the activities of the said assessee were not charitable. The ld. AO\nobserved that a large surplus has been generated from the sale of properties,\ninterest had been taken on payment of installments which also included penal\ninterest on all kinds of properties

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

section 11 of the Act, on account of enquiries made by the ld. AO\nwhich showed that the activities of the said assessee were not charitable. The ld. AO\nobserved that a large surplus has been generated from the sale of properties,\ninterest had been taken on payment of installments which also included penal\ninterest on all kinds of properties

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

section 11, did not consider the findings of the AO with\nrespect to section 11(2), section 13(1)(d) and section 13(3). He has pointed out that\nonce the ld. CIT(A) had held that the income of the assessee should be computed in\nthe manner specified in section 11, taking into account information given in the\naudit

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

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

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

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. 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

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. 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

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

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S WELLDONE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Range-3, Lucknow Private Limited, Lucknow Pan:Aaacw6354Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (Cit) & Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) On 19.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,26,72,571/- Without Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Developing Properties & Selling It & Is Earning Rental Income Which Is Incidental To The "Revenue From Business Operations" Of The Assessee. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Law & On Facts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee, While Filing Original Return Of Income Had Itself Considered That Rental Are In The Nature Of Revenue From Business Operations.

Section 23(5) of the I.T. Act provides no difference in Residential and commercial properties and incomes from both type of properties are taxed as Income from House property. (Pl refer page 4 of the CIT-A Order) (Pl refer page 4 of the CIT-A Order) 8 A.Y. 2017-17 M/s Welldone Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. D Before

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

property allotted to the employees of the development authority. Since, it was his view that the employees of the development authority were persons covered under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he concluded that the activities of the assessee could not be said to be charitable in nature, because of such concessions allowed to the employees. Accordingly

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