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

482 (AP). In the instant case, the beneficiary is not covered by the list of persons mentioned in Section 13(3) of the Act. Page 26 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) Hence, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and restored the order passed by the A.O. The answer to the question is in negative

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

482 (AP). In the instant case, the beneficiary is not covered by the list of persons mentioned in Section 13(3) of the Act. Page 26 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) Hence, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and restored the order passed by the A.O. The answer to the question is in negative

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

482 (AP). In the instant case, the beneficiary is not covered by the list of persons mentioned in Section 13(3) of the Act. Page 26 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) Hence, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and restored the order passed by the A.O. The answer to the question is in negative

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

482 (AP). In the instant case, the beneficiary is not covered by the list of persons mentioned in Section 13(3) of the Act. Page 26 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) Hence, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and restored the order passed by the A.O. The answer to the question is in negative

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

482 (AP). In the instant case, the beneficiary is not covered by the list of persons mentioned in Section 13(3) of the Act. Page 26 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) Hence, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and restored the order passed by the A.O. The answer to the question is in negative

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

482 (AP). In the instant case, the beneficiary is not covered by the list of persons mentioned in Section 13(3) of the Act. Page 26 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) Hence, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and restored the order passed by the A.O. The answer to the question is in negative

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

House Property and other source income. The business activities\ncarried out by the assessee remained identical as to those in several\npreceding year and were operated and controlled from the following\nplaces;\n(a) 74/02, Collectorganj. (Office)\n(b) J-9, Site-3, Panki Industrial Area, Kanpur (Godown)\nFollowing grounds have been raised:-\n1. That the assessment famed u/s.143

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

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

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

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

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

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

housing projects and multi-storeyed buildings (residential/commercial/malls). It consists of ten partners. Eight of them are land owning companies (‘LOC’, for short) who brought in rights over the land owned by them. Mangalya Township Private Limited, the ninth partner, provided finance. The tenth partner, M/s Sahara Prime City Limited (‘SPCL’, for short) brought in rights over its land as well