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

property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was emerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial organization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that the surplus of the assessee was not incidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further commented that the exemption enjoyed under 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

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

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

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

property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was\nemerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial\norganization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that the surplus of the assessee was not\nincidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further\ncommented that the exemption enjoyed under 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

property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was\nemerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial\norganization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that the surplus of the assessee was not\nincidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further\ncommented that the exemption enjoyed under section

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

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

property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was\nemerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial\norganization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that the surplus of the assessee was not\nincidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further\ncommented that the exemption enjoyed under 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

property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was\nemerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial\norganization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that the surplus of the assessee was not\nincidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further\ncommented that the exemption enjoyed under section

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

properties left over to the Government as per the provisions of section 58 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 would become a part of general Revenue of the State and the State Government was not under any obligation to utilize the same for the purpose for which the authority was set up, the assessee did not fulfill the conditions required for claiming

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

property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was\nemerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial\norganization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that the surplus of the assessee was not\nincidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further\ncommented that the exemption enjoyed under section

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

properties \nleft over to the Government as per the provisions of section 58 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 would \nbecome a part of general Revenue of the State and the State Government was not under any \nobligation to utilize the same for the purpose for which the authority was set up, the assessee \ndid not fulfill the conditions required for claiming

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

properties \nleft over to the Government as per the provisions of section 58 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 would \nbecome a part of general Revenue of the State and the State Government was not under any \nobligation to utilize the same for the purpose for which the authority was set up, the assessee \ndid not fulfill the conditions required for claiming

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

properties \nleft over to the Government as per the provisions of section 58 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 would \nbecome a part of general Revenue of the State and the State Government was not under any \nobligation to utilize the same for the purpose for which the authority was set up, the assessee \ndid not fulfill the conditions required for claiming

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

35,200/-.\nThe assessee is carrying on business of edible oil. Besides business\nincome, he draws salary from M/s R.K. Agro Oil (P) Ltd., and from M/s\nGanpati Edible Oil (P) Ltd., income from house property and other sources.\nReturn declaring total income of Rs.13,20,260/- was e-filed on through\nacknowledgement no.499539771280912. The said return was processed\nunder

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\n6. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in \ndeleting the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of gift received from father Shri \nSurya Narayan Pandey