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. 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

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

section 133A of the Act were also carried out at many places belonging to the assessee group and its business associates. As a result of search/survey operations, various documents were seized/impounded, resultant to which the group as a whole agreed to surrender a sum of Rs.10 crores as undisclosed income/investment. The declaration to this effect was originally made by Shri

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

section 133A of the Act were also carried out at many places belonging to the assessee group and its business associates. As a result of search/survey operations, various documents were seized/impounded, resultant to which the group as a whole agreed to surrender a sum of Rs.10 crores as undisclosed income/investment. The declaration to this effect was originally made by Shri

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

section 133A of the Act were also carried out at many places belonging to the assessee group and its business associates. As a result of search/survey operations, various documents were seized/impounded, resultant to which the group as a whole agreed to surrender a sum of Rs.10 crores as undisclosed income/investment. The declaration to this effect was originally made by Shri

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

section 133A of the Act were also carried out at many places belonging to the assessee group and its business associates. As a result of search/survey operations, various documents were seized/impounded, resultant to which the group as a whole agreed to surrender a sum of Rs.10 crores as undisclosed income/investment. The declaration to this effect was originally made by Shri

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

section 133A of the Act were also carried out at many places belonging to the assessee group and its business associates. As a result of search/survey operations, various documents were seized/impounded, resultant to which the group as a whole agreed to surrender a sum of Rs.10 crores as undisclosed income/investment. The declaration to this effect was originally made by Shri

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

section 133A of the Act were also carried out at many places belonging to the assessee group and its business associates. As a result of search/survey operations, various documents were seized/impounded, resultant to which the group as a whole agreed to surrender a sum of Rs.10 crores as undisclosed income/investment. The declaration to this effect was originally made by Shri

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

section 133A of the Act were also carried out at many places belonging to the assessee group and its business associates. As a result of search/survey operations, various documents were seized/impounded, resultant to which the group as a whole agreed to surrender a sum of Rs.10 crores as undisclosed income/investment. The declaration to this effect was originally made by Shri

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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

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

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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