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

17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. 18. It is undisputed fact that the assessee is a "Statutory Authority" which was established under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Planning and Development Act, 1973. In the instant case, prior to 1st April, 2003, the assessee were enjoying exemption under Section

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

17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. 18. It is undisputed fact that the assessee is a "Statutory Authority" which was established under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Planning and Development Act, 1973. In the instant case, prior to 1st April, 2003, the assessee were enjoying exemption under Section

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

17,66,512/-out of total TDS of Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi Rs. 24,02,503/-, for ay: 2009-10. It was also submitted that the assessee e- filed income tax return in ITR-4, which is a return of income for declaring business

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

17,66,512/-out of total TDS of Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi Rs. 24,02,503/-, for ay: 2009-10. It was also submitted that the assessee e- filed income tax return in ITR-4, which is a return of income for declaring business

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

17- 18 when this application, so far as it relates to subsequent year/s, is within prescribed time and also as per law. 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

SATYAM FOUNDATION,VARANASI vs. CIT (E),, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: N.A Satyam Foundation, The Cit(Exemption), B-38/266 Kh-3, Tulsipur, V. 5Th Floor, South Block, T.C./46V, Mahmoorganj, Upsidc Ltd., Vibhutikhand, Varanasi-221002, Uttar Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Pradesh Pan: Aakts6783J (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable entity. Further , it was observed by ld. CIT(E) that the trust deed of the assessee does not have a clause that the beneficiaries are a section of public and not specific individuals .The ld. CIT(E) also observed that trust deed of the assessee does not have a clause that the assets/funds of the assessee will be used

ATMANUSANDHAN KENDRA KALYANPURI,CHANDUALI vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: N.A. Atmanusandhan Kendra The Cit(Exemption), Kalyanpuri, Baaharvani, V. 5Th Floor, South Block, T.C./46V, Paura, Chanduli-232103, Upsidc Ltd., Vibhutikhand, U.P. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. Pan:Aapca 0369N (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable entity. Further , it was observed by ld. CIT(E) that the constitution(MOA) of the assessee does not have a clause that the beneficiaries are a section of public and not specific individuals .The ld. CIT(E) also observed that MOA/constitution of the assessee does not have a clause that the assets/funds of the assessee will be used