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

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)

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. 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 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

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

83 Taxman 340,342 (Del)]." The aforesaid Commentary further explains "business" as under on Page 1336: "Is profit-motive essential to constitute a 'business'? - "Business,without profit is not business, any more than a pickle is candy"[Abbot]. To regard an activity as 'business', there must be a course of dealings, either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with

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

83 Taxman 340,342 (Del)]." The aforesaid Commentary further explains "business" as under on Page 1336: "Is profit-motive essential to constitute a 'business'? - "Business,without profit is not business, any more than a pickle is candy"[Abbot]. To regard an activity as 'business', there must be a course of dealings, either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with

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

83 Taxman 340,342 (Del)]." The aforesaid Commentary further explains "business" as under on Page 1336: "Is profit-motive essential to constitute a 'business'? - "Business,without profit is not business, any more than a pickle is candy"[Abbot]. To regard an activity as 'business', there must be a course of dealings, either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with

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

83 Taxman 340,342 (Del)]." The aforesaid Commentary further explains "business" as under on Page 1336: "Is profit-motive essential to constitute a 'business'? - "Business,without profit is not business, any more than a pickle is candy"[Abbot]. To regard an activity as 'business', there must be a course of dealings, either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with

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

83 Taxman 340,342 (Del)]." The aforesaid Commentary further explains "business" as under on Page 1336: "Is profit-motive essential to constitute a 'business'? - "Business,without profit is not business, any more than a pickle is candy"[Abbot]. To regard an activity as 'business', there must be a course of dealings, either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

83 (Del) wherein it has been held there is a distinction\nbetween \"lack of inquiry\" and \"inadequate inquiry\", if there was any inquiry even inadequate,\nthat would not itself give right or occasion to the Commissioner to pass order u/s 263 of the Act\nmerely because he has different opinion in the matter.\nFurther reliance is placed on the decision

ISHWAR DWELLINGS PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-16

price paid is not decisive to say whether the land is agricultural or not. I.T.A. No.44/Lkw/2021 Assessment Year:2015-16 14 6.7 We may refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CWT vs. E. Udayakumar (2006) 284 ITR 511 (Mad) where the Hon'ble Madras High Court has referred to the decision

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

83,75,346/- for the assessment year 2008-09, by denying the exemption under section 11. Aggrieved by these orders giving appeal effect to the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee again went before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the appeal effect. It was submitted that the assessee had been denied the exemption under section

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

83,75,346/- for the assessment year 2008-09, by denying the exemption under section 11. Aggrieved by these orders giving appeal effect to the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee again went before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the appeal effect. It was submitted that the assessee had been denied the exemption under section

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

83,75,346/- for the assessment year 2008-09, by denying the exemption under section 11. Aggrieved by these orders giving appeal effect to the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee again went before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the appeal effect. It was submitted that the assessee had been denied the exemption under section

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

83,75,346/- for the assessment year 2008-09, by denying the exemption under section 11. Aggrieved by these orders giving appeal effect to the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee again went before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the appeal effect. It was submitted that the assessee had been denied the exemption under section

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

83,75,346/- for the assessment year 2008-09, by denying the exemption under section 11. Aggrieved by these orders giving appeal effect to the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee again went before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the appeal effect. It was submitted that the assessee had been denied the exemption under section

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

83,75,346/- for the assessment year 2008-09, by denying the exemption under section 11. Aggrieved by these orders giving appeal effect to the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee again went before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the appeal effect. It was submitted that the assessee had been denied the exemption under section