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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

10(20) and Section 11 of Act, 1961 and held that both provisions operate in totally different spheres. If Board ceased to be "local authority", it is not precluded from claiming exemption under Section 11(1) in the light of definition of "charitable purposes" under Section 2(15) of Act, 1961. Advancement of any object of benefit to public

MIRZA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), KANPUR

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

20,71,405/- for computing the profit and gains of Eligible Business under section 80 IC of the Act and in making addition of Rs.96,21,421/- to the income of the assessee company. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs.1,65,586/- in respect

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

10(20), the assessee could not claim any benefit under those provisions after April 1, 2003. The assessee subsequently claimed that its objects falls under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and has 32 ITA No.30(Asr)/2011 complied with all the eligibility criteria for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act, which was allowed

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

10(20), the assessee could not claim any benefit under those provisions after April 1, 2003. The assessee subsequently claimed that its objects falls under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and has 32 ITA No.30(Asr)/2011 complied with all the eligibility criteria for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act, which was allowed

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

10(20), the assessee could not claim any benefit under those provisions after April 1, 2003. The assessee subsequently claimed that its objects falls under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and has 32 ITA No.30(Asr)/2011 complied with all the eligibility criteria for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act, which was allowed

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

10(20), the assessee could not claim any benefit under those provisions after April 1, 2003. The assessee subsequently claimed that its objects falls under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and has 32 ITA No.30(Asr)/2011 complied with all the eligibility criteria for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act, which was allowed

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

10(20), the assessee could not claim any benefit under those provisions after April 1, 2003. The assessee subsequently claimed that its objects falls under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and has 32 ITA No.30(Asr)/2011 complied with all the eligibility criteria for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act, which was allowed

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

10(20), the assessee could not claim any benefit under those provisions after April 1, 2003. The assessee subsequently claimed that its objects falls under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and has 32 ITA No.30(Asr)/2011 complied with all the eligibility criteria for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act, which was allowed

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

10(20), the assessee could not claim any benefit under those provisions after April 1, 2003. The assessee subsequently claimed that its objects falls under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and has 32 ITA No.30(Asr)/2011 complied with all the eligibility criteria for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act, which was allowed

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

10(20), the assessee could not claim any benefit under those provisions after April 1, 2003. The assessee subsequently claimed that its objects falls under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and has 32 ITA No.30(Asr)/2011 complied with all the eligibility criteria for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act, which was allowed

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

transferred the amount to the balance-sheet, which was against normal accounting principles. Since, he had already denied the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 11, the ld. AO decided to treat the grant of Rs.8,68,50,000/-, as the income of the assessee, and it was accordingly added back to the income of the assessee. Finally

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

transferred the amount to the balance-sheet, which was against \nnormal accounting principles. Since, he had already denied the assessee’s claim for exemption \nunder section 11, the ld. AO decided to treat the grant of Rs.8,68,50,000/-, as the income of the \nassessee, and it was accordingly added back to the income of the assessee. Finally

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

transferred the amount to the balance-sheet, which was against \nnormal accounting principles. Since, he had already denied the assessee’s claim for exemption \nunder section 11, the ld. AO decided to treat the grant of Rs.8,68,50,000/-, as the income of the \nassessee, and it was accordingly added back to the income of the assessee. Finally

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

20 STC 398 (SC); CST v. Anil Co-operative Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); MahammadFaruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

20 STC 398 (SC); CST v. Anil Co-operative Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); MahammadFaruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

20 STC 398 (SC); CST v. Anil Co-operative Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); MahammadFaruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

20 STC 398 (SC); CST v. Anil Co-operative Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); MahammadFaruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

20 STC 398 (SC); CST v. Anil Co-operative Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); MahammadFaruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot