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

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)

section 11 of the Act, as all the income and expenditure related to the activities carried out for the objects of the trust. It is also a matter of fact that neither the objects have been changed nor the activities of the trust have been found to be non-genuine or it has been found that the expenditure incurred were

SANT KACHACHA BABA LOK SEWA TRUST,,VARANASI vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 13(3) of the 1961 Act. Thus, in nut-shell the ld. CIT(E) held that the assessee failed to prove that it is undertaking its educational activities for charitable purposes , rather it is running its educational activities on commercial grounds, and also that the assessee has not worked towards the performance of objects set out in its Memorandum

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

8. That the application filed on 27.10.18 filed for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi), so far as it relates to subsequent year/s, deserves to allowed when all the conditions for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) for subsequent year/s are fulfilled in the case. 9. That the ld. CIT- Exemption deserves to be directed to grant