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

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

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

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

10% discount on the present value of the property allotted to the employees of the development authority. Since, it was his view that the employees of the development authority were persons covered under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he concluded that the activities of the assessee could not be said to be charitable in nature, because

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

10% discount on the present value of the property allotted to the employees of the \ndevelopment authority. Since, it was his view that the employees of the development authority \nwere persons covered under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he concluded that the \nactivities of the assessee could not be said to be charitable in nature, because

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

10% discount on the present value of the property allotted to the employees of the \ndevelopment authority. Since, it was his view that the employees of the development authority \nwere persons covered under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he concluded that the \nactivities of the assessee could not be said to be charitable in nature, because

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

35 1925 Cal 34=11TC 363]. Thus the word 'business' is a wider term than, and not synonymous with, trade; and means practically anything which is an occupation as distinguished from a pleasure [ Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Vo1.38, page 10, quoted in CIT v. Upasana hospital, (19970 225 ITR 845,851 (Ker). Also see, CIT v. Delhi

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

35 1925 Cal 34=11TC 363]. Thus the word 'business' is a wider term than, and not synonymous with, trade; and means practically anything which is an occupation as distinguished from a pleasure [ Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Vo1.38, page 10, quoted in CIT v. Upasana hospital, (19970 225 ITR 845,851 (Ker). Also see, CIT v. Delhi

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

35 1925 Cal 34=11TC 363]. Thus the word 'business' is a wider term than, and not synonymous with, trade; and means practically anything which is an occupation as distinguished from a pleasure [ Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Vo1.38, page 10, quoted in CIT v. Upasana hospital, (19970 225 ITR 845,851 (Ker). Also see, CIT v. Delhi

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

35 1925 Cal 34=11TC 363]. Thus the word 'business' is a wider term than, and not synonymous with, trade; and means practically anything which is an occupation as distinguished from a pleasure [ Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Vo1.38, page 10, quoted in CIT v. Upasana hospital, (19970 225 ITR 845,851 (Ker). Also see, CIT v. Delhi

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

35 1925 Cal 34=11TC 363]. Thus the word 'business' is a wider term than, and not synonymous with, trade; and means practically anything which is an occupation as distinguished from a pleasure [ Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Vo1.38, page 10, quoted in CIT v. Upasana hospital, (19970 225 ITR 845,851 (Ker). Also see, CIT v. Delhi

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

10% discount on the present value of the property allotted to the employees of the development authority. Since, it was his view that the employees of the development authority were persons covered under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he concluded that the activities of the assessee could not be said to be charitable in nature, because

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

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