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. 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

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)

price thereof was to be determined mutually; that the valuation of the WIP was not mandatory; that in any case, no addition under section 69C of the Act was called for; that the consideration mentioned in the MoU tallies exactly with the assessee’s financials; that the Ledger Account of the WIP (APB:43), as on 31.3.2011, also duly reflects

SHIMLA PROPERTIES,LUCKNOW vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Shimla Properties V. The Pcit 30C, Datiya House Lucknow Khursheed Bagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ablfs9732M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 08 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2022 O R D E R

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including

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

26 & 27/LKW/2018 \nA.Ys.2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 \nAyodhya Development Authority, Civil \nLines, Faizabad (formerly Ayodhya \nFaizabad Development Authority), U.P. \nVs. DCIT (Exemption), \nCircle- Lucknow \nPAN:AAALA0206C \n(Appellant) (Respondent) \nAssessee by: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul Agarwal \nC.A. \nRevenue by: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT \n(DR) \nDate of hearing: 29.11.2024 \nDate of pronouncement

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

26 & 27/LKW/2018 \nA.Ys.2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 \nAyodhya Development Authority, Civil \nLines, Faizabad (formerly Ayodhya \nFaizabad Development Authority), U.P. \nVs. DCIT (Exemption), \nCircle- Lucknow \nPAN:AAALA0206C \n(Appellant) (Respondent) \nAssessee by: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul Agarwal \nC.A.\nRevenue by: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT \n(DR)\nDate of hearing: 29.11.2024 \nDate of pronouncement

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

26 ITA Nos.532 & 533/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.534 & 535/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.21 & 22/LKW/2019 U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad orders of the ld. CIT(A) as bad in law, because the ld. CIT(A) could not have passed an order that an institution was charitable in nature, without insisting on the compliance to the essential conditions of eligibility for exemption as prescribed in sections

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

26. The ld. D.R. has contended that without prejudice and in the alternative, since the role of the DVO is crucial in this ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 23 of 46 the consideration has been fixed at Rs.46,84,19,482/-. The second asset which is agreed to be transferred, is related land and the development rights, which were

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

26. The ld. D.R. has contended that without prejudice and in the alternative, since the role of the DVO is crucial in this ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 23 of 46 the consideration has been fixed at Rs.46,84,19,482/-. The second asset which is agreed to be transferred, is related land and the development rights, which were

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

26. The ld. D.R. has contended that without prejudice and in the alternative, since the role of the DVO is crucial in this ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 23 of 46 the consideration has been fixed at Rs.46,84,19,482/-. The second asset which is agreed to be transferred, is related land and the development rights, which were

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

26. The ld. D.R. has contended that without prejudice and in the alternative, since the role of the DVO is crucial in this ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 23 of 46 the consideration has been fixed at Rs.46,84,19,482/-. The second asset which is agreed to be transferred, is related land and the development rights, which were

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

26. The ld. D.R. has contended that without prejudice and in the alternative, since the role of the DVO is crucial in this ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 23 of 46 the consideration has been fixed at Rs.46,84,19,482/-. The second asset which is agreed to be transferred, is related land and the development rights, which were

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

26. The ld. D.R. has contended that without prejudice and in the alternative, since the role of the DVO is crucial in this ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 23 of 46 the consideration has been fixed at Rs.46,84,19,482/-. The second asset which is agreed to be transferred, is related land and the development rights, which were

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

26. The ld. D.R. has contended that without prejudice and in the alternative, since the role of the DVO is crucial in this ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 23 of 46 the consideration has been fixed at Rs.46,84,19,482/-. The second asset which is agreed to be transferred, is related land and the development rights, which were

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

26. The ld. D.R. has contended that without prejudice and in the alternative, since the role of the DVO is crucial in this ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 23 of 46 the consideration has been fixed at Rs.46,84,19,482/-. The second asset which is agreed to be transferred, is related land and the development rights, which were

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 34), RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

26. The ld. D.R. has contended that without prejudice and in the alternative, since the role of the DVO is crucial in this ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 23 of 46 the consideration has been fixed at Rs.46,84,19,482/-. The second asset which is agreed to be transferred, is related land and the development rights, which were