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

48. The major thrust of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee is of general public utility as it satisfies the need for housing accommodation for the section of the people of State of Kerala, specifically Cochin and is also doing planning and development of the cities, towns and villages. We are not agreeable with the argument

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

48. The major thrust of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee is of general public utility as it satisfies the need for housing accommodation for the section of the people of State of Kerala, specifically Cochin and is also doing planning and development of the cities, towns and villages. We are not agreeable with the argument

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

48. The major thrust of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee is of general public utility as it satisfies the need for housing accommodation for the section of the people of State of Kerala, specifically Cochin and is also doing planning and development of the cities, towns and villages. We are not agreeable with the argument

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

48. The major thrust of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee is of general public utility as it satisfies the need for housing accommodation for the section of the people of State of Kerala, specifically Cochin and is also doing planning and development of the cities, towns and villages. We are not agreeable with the argument

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

48. The major thrust of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee is of general public utility as it satisfies the need for housing accommodation for the section of the people of State of Kerala, specifically Cochin and is also doing planning and development of the cities, towns and villages. We are not agreeable with the argument

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

48. The major thrust of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee is of general public utility as it satisfies the need for housing accommodation for the section of the people of State of Kerala, specifically Cochin and is also doing planning and development of the cities, towns and villages. We are not agreeable with the argument

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

48. In the context of Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "LDA") a statutory body constituted under U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "UPUPD Act, 1973") in CIT Versus Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow 2014 (2) ALJ 578, a question arose whether it would be entitled for registration under Section 12A/12AA. On behalf of Revenue

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

48. In the context of Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "LDA") a statutory body constituted under U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "UPUPD Act, 1973") in CIT Versus Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow 2014 (2) ALJ 578, a question arose whether it would be entitled for registration under Section 12A/12AA. On behalf of Revenue

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

48. In the context of Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "LDA") a statutory body constituted under U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "UPUPD Act, 1973") in CIT Versus Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow 2014 (2) ALJ 578, a question arose whether it would be entitled for registration under Section 12A/12AA. On behalf of Revenue

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

48,20,167/- 13. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee (LDA) was created by enactment of Uttar Pradesh Urban Development and Planning Act, 1973 by Notification No. 1892/XXXVI-2-21

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

48,20,167/- 13. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee (LDA) was created by enactment of Uttar Pradesh Urban Development and Planning Act, 1973 by Notification No. 1892/XXXVI-2-21

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

48,20,167/- 13. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee (LDA) was created by enactment of Uttar Pradesh Urban Development and Planning Act, 1973 by Notification No. 1892/XXXVI-2-21

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

48,20,167/- 13. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee (LDA) was created by enactment of Uttar Pradesh Urban Development and Planning Act, 1973 by Notification No. 1892/XXXVI-2-21

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

48,20,167/- 13. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee (LDA) was created by enactment of Uttar Pradesh Urban Development and Planning Act, 1973 by Notification No. 1892/XXXVI-2-21

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

transfer to the units and it was put in the balance-sheet for taking care of expenses that the head office was incurring on behalf of the units. Furthermore, she submitted that when the amount was spent, it was routed through the income and expenditure account. Therefore, there was no basis for making the addition on this account

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

2. In this regard reliance has been placed on the statement of Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal recorded on oath under section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice

KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

2. In this regard reliance has been placed on the statement of Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal recorded on oath under section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

2. In this regard reliance has been placed on the statement of Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal recorded on oath under section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice