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

5. However, at the same point of time, (vide Finance Act, 1983), another amendment was carried out in Section 11 which inserted clause (4A), providing that the exemption to a trust or an institution 6. Thus, the legislative intent was very clear right from the beginning that business and charity cannot go together and if at all a charitable institution

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

5. However, at the same point of time, (vide Finance Act, 1983), another amendment was carried out in Section 11 which inserted clause (4A), providing that the exemption to a trust or an institution 6. Thus, the legislative intent was very clear right from the beginning that business and charity cannot go together and if at all a charitable institution

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

5. However, at the same point of time, (vide Finance Act, 1983), another amendment was carried out in Section 11 which inserted clause (4A), providing that the exemption to a trust or an institution 6. Thus, the legislative intent was very clear right from the beginning that business and charity cannot go together and if at all a charitable institution

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

5. However, at the same point of time, (vide Finance Act, 1983), another amendment was carried out in Section 11 which inserted clause (4A), providing that the exemption to a trust or an institution 6. Thus, the legislative intent was very clear right from the beginning that business and charity cannot go together and if at all a charitable institution

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

5. However, at the same point of time, (vide Finance Act, 1983), another amendment was carried out in Section 11 which inserted clause (4A), providing that the exemption to a trust or an institution 6. Thus, the legislative intent was very clear right from the beginning that business and charity cannot go together and if at all a charitable institution

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

5. However, at the same point of time, (vide Finance Act, 1983), another amendment was carried out in Section 11 which inserted clause (4A), providing that the exemption to a trust or an institution 6. Thus, the legislative intent was very clear right from the beginning that business and charity cannot go together and if at all a charitable institution

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

5% concession on the total price of land/flats allotted to all its employees including senior employees. Thus, a benefit was being given to the employees and more particularly, the Manager and their relatives. Ld. Special Counsel pointed out that though the Adhiniyam, 1965 under which the respondent was created, did not give any such benefit to all the employees including

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

5% concession on the total price of land/flats allotted to all its employees including senior employees. Thus, a benefit was being given to the employees and more particularly, the Manager and their relatives. Ld. Special Counsel pointed out that though the Adhiniyam, 1965 under which the respondent was created, did not give any such benefit to all the employees including

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

5% concession on the total price of land/flats allotted to all its employees including senior employees. Thus, a benefit was being given to the employees and more particularly, the Manager and their relatives. Ld. Special Counsel pointed out that though the Adhiniyam, 1965 under which the respondent was created, did not give any such benefit to all the employees including

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

5% concession on the total price of land/flats allotted to all its employees including senior employees. Thus, a benefit was being given to the employees and more particularly, the Manager and their relatives. Ld. Special Counsel pointed out that though the Adhiniyam, 1965 under which the respondent was created, did not give any such benefit to all the employees including

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

5% concession on the total price of land/flats allotted to all its employees including senior employees. Thus, a benefit was being given to the employees and more particularly, the Manager and their relatives. Ld. Special Counsel pointed out that though the Adhiniyam, 1965 under which the respondent was created, did not give any such benefit to all the employees including

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)

5. The ld. AO was not satisfied with the replies submitted by the assessee. He held that firstly the requirement of compliance to the provisions of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act had not been complied with and secondly the new provisions of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act had come into play. He proceeded

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)

5. The ld. AO was not satisfied with the replies submitted by the assessee. He held that firstly the requirement of compliance to the provisions of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act had not been complied with and secondly the new provisions of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act had come into play. He proceeded

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)

5. The ld. AO was not satisfied with the replies submitted by the assessee. He held that firstly the requirement of compliance to the provisions of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act had not been complied with and secondly the new provisions of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act had come into play. He proceeded

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)

5. The ld. AO was not satisfied with the replies submitted by the assessee. He held that firstly the requirement of compliance to the provisions of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act had not been complied with and secondly the new provisions of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act had come into play. He proceeded

NIRMAL SINGH,AYODHYA vs. ITO WARD-1,, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria & Sa. No. 07/Lkw/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.83/Lkw/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nirmal Singh The Income Tax Officer, V. 15/2/16, Janki Ghat, Ayodhya- Ward-1, 224123, Faizabad (Up). Cinema Road, Faizabad- New-224001. Pan:Bdsps4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 10 2024 O R D E R

transferred for a consideration less than its stamp duty value. «The appellant contended that the agreement for sale of section of property was done in 2012. Hence, Section 56(2)(vii) is nat applicable in his case. In my view, The Section 56(2)(vii) does not consider the date of the agreement but rather focuses on the amount received

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

price, which was developed and sold at a premium to the perspective buyers. Apparently, on dissolution of the authority, all assets shall be transferred to the Government and there was no restriction on the use of these assets by the Government. Therefore the objects pursued by the applicant cannot be termed as charitable in view of the fact that

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

price, which was developed and sold at a premium to the perspective buyers. Apparently, on dissolution of the authority, all assets shall be transferred to the Government and there was no restriction on the use of these assets by the Government. Therefore the objects pursued by the applicant cannot be termed as charitable in view of the fact that