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

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

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

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

priced anything \nabove such limit, though the cost incurred for construction of same be far more than \nthe limit set by State Government. It would be pertinent to mention here that when \na scheme is launched, out of total area covered under said scheme between 40% to \n50% of such area is saleable area and out of the saleable area

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

priced anything \nabove such limit, though the cost incurred for construction of same be far more than \nthe limit set by State Government. It would be pertinent to mention here that when \na scheme is launched, out of total area covered under said scheme between 40% to \n50% of such area is saleable area and out of the saleable area

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that