VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

13 of the 1961 Act. The audit report under Section 44AB was also filed by the assessee in prescribed form No. 3CB and 3CD. The AO observed that the object of the assessee-authority as defined under Section 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973and as submitted by the assessee in written reply before

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

13 of the 1961 Act. The audit report under Section 44AB was also filed by the assessee in prescribed form No. 3CB and 3CD. The AO observed that the object of the assessee-authority as defined under Section 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973and as submitted by the assessee in written reply before

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

13 of the 1961 Act. The audit report under Section 44AB was also filed by the assessee in prescribed form No. 3CB and 3CD. The AO observed that the object of the assessee-authority as defined under Section 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973and as submitted by the assessee in written reply before

MATH GARWA GHAT (TRUST),VARANASI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: N.A. Math Gadwaghat Trust V. The Cit (Exemptions) Bangla Kuti, Ramna Varanasi Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aaets8008G (Appellant) (Respondent)

13(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the administrative expenditure cannot be said to be outside the ambit of charitable activities, because these are expenditures incurred for carrying out the activities of the trust, for which registration was granted earlier. Once the similar nature of activities have been accepted in the past and also exactly similar nature of expenditures have

THE SPRINGER EDUCATION FOUNDATION,,GORAKHPUR vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

Charitable Trust, Barnala Vs CBDT (2010) 195 taxmann 88 (Punj. & Har), the issue of rejection of claim for grant of exemption for application filed after the prescribed period had been considered by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Court observed as under: "It is conceded position that the assessee-petitioner has filed the application on 23.09.2008 seeking