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

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

22,00,00,000/- u/s 11(2),\n•\nExcess of income over expenditure upto 15% of gross receipts at Rs\n18,18,45,924/- claimed as exempt u/s 11(1) of the Act\n•\npurchase cost of Fixed Assets, during the year under consideration,\naggregating to Rs 14,96,91,583 less depreciation

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.

2 A.Y. 2017-17 M/s Welldone Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. income tax and the balance was to be chargeable to Income Tax under the head, “income from house property”. It was further submitted that under the head income from “income from house property”, there was no differentiation between the fact of whether the property was a commercial property or a residential

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

22)(e) of\nthe Act, which amounts to enhancement of income and such enhancement\nof income is impermissible in view of the specific provisions of section\n251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n5. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the\ndisallowance of Rs.13,26,600/- under section

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

22 housing, roads, development and maintenance of parks (boost to environment) plantation of trees (again pertaining to environment), providing sewerage system (clean and healthy environment) are all objects for the welfare of the people of the Raebareli Development Authority district; as also these are objects of general public utility. However, since these are the objects of general publicity utility

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

22 housing, roads, development and maintenance of parks (boost to environment) plantation of trees (again pertaining to environment), providing sewerage system (clean and healthy environment) are all objects for the welfare of the people of the Raebareli Development Authority district; as also these are objects of general public utility. However, since these are the objects of general publicity utility

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

22 housing, roads, development and maintenance of parks (boost to environment) plantation of trees (again pertaining to environment), providing sewerage system (clean and healthy environment) are all objects for the welfare of the people of the Raebareli Development Authority district; as also these are objects of general public utility. However, since these are the objects of general publicity utility

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

22 housing, roads, development and maintenance of parks (boost to environment) plantation of trees (again pertaining to environment), providing sewerage system (clean and healthy environment) are all objects for the welfare of the people of the Raebareli Development Authority district; as also these are objects of general public utility. However, since these are the objects of general publicity utility

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

Housing Board had neither any set of objectives which could be perceived to be charitable nor was the class of people to get benefited by its endeavour, identifiably defined. Buyers, allottees and lessees who had to pay a commercial consideration for what they got in return could not be classified as, “beneficiaries” as the consideration charged by the Board

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

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

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

Housing Board\nhad neither any set of objectives which could be perceived to be charitable nor was\nthe class of people to get benefited by its endeavour, identifiably defined. Buyers,\nallottees and lessees who had to pay a commercial consideration for what they got\nin return could not be classified as, “beneficiaries” as the consideration charged by\nthe Board

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

Housing Board\nhad neither any set of objectives which could be perceived to be charitable nor was\nthe class of people to get benefited by its endeavour, identifiably defined. Buyers,\nallottees and lessees who had to pay a commercial consideration for what they got\nin return could not be classified as, “beneficiaries” as the consideration charged by\nthe Board

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

Housing Board\nhad neither any set of objectives which could be perceived to be charitable nor was\nthe class of people to get benefited by its endeavour, identifiably defined. Buyers,\nallottees and lessees who had to pay a commercial consideration for what they got\nin return could not be classified as, “beneficiaries” as the consideration charged by\nthe Board

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

Housing Board\nhad neither any set of objectives which could be perceived to be charitable nor was\nthe class of people to get benefited by its endeavour, identifiably defined. Buyers,\nallottees and lessees who had to pay a commercial consideration for what they got\nin return could not be classified as, “beneficiaries” as the consideration charged by\nthe Board

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

house property situated at\nLucknow at the time of transfer of property that violates the provisions of section 54F\nof Income Tax Act, 1961.\n\nI.T.A. No.608/Lkw/2024, A.Y. 2020-21 (Revenue’s Appeal)\n\n1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.93,93,846/- on account

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

Housing Board\nhad neither any set of objectives which could be perceived to be charitable nor was\nthe class of people to get benefited by its endeavour, identifiably defined. Buyers,\nallottees and lessees who had to pay a commercial consideration for what they got\nin return could not be classified as, “beneficiaries” as the consideration charged by\nthe Board