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

transfer and registration of property in their names and since they also had to pay premium towards price appreciation of the property, betterment charges for value addition to the property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was emerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial organization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

transfer and registration of property in their names and since they also had to pay premium towards price appreciation of the property, betterment charges for value addition to the property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was emerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial organization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

transfer and registration of property in their names and since they also had to pay premium towards price appreciation of the property, betterment charges for value addition to the property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was emerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial organization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

transfer and registration of property in their names and since they also had to pay premium towards price appreciation of the property, betterment charges for value addition to the property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was emerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial organization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that