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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

54,446/- as income under head Business & Profession. 9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly confirming the addition of 31,53,656/- made by applying the provisions of section 11(6) of Income-tax Act when more than 85% of income was utilized without considering the depreciation as application

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

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

54,446/- as income \nunder head Business & Profession. \n9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in \nwrongly confirming the addition of 31,53,656/- made by applying the provisions of section \n11(6) of Income-tax Act when more than 85% of income was utilized without considering \nthe depreciation as application

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

54,446/- as income \nunder head Business & Profession.\n9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in \nwrongly confirming the addition of 31,53,656/- made by applying the provisions of section \n11(6) of Income-tax Act when more than 85% of income was utilized without considering \nthe depreciation as application

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

54,446/- as income \nunder head Business & Profession. \n9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in \nwrongly confirming the addition of 31,53,656/- made by applying the provisions of section \n11(6) of Income-tax Act when more than 85% of income was utilized without considering \nthe depreciation as application

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,DEVAS 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,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,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,KARNAL 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,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,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,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,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,ALIGARH 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,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

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,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