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

iv) Development and allotments of plots, residential units etc. to specific class of people/public at large, (v) Infrastructure development including roads, sever(sic. sewer) etc.” 4(vi) The AO observed that objects of the assessee as mentioned above falls under the limb “any other object of general public utilities”. The AO then refers to what constitute business , in legal parlance

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

iv) Development and allotments of plots, residential units etc. to specific class of people/public at large, (v) Infrastructure development including roads, sever(sic. sewer) etc.” 4(vi) The AO observed that objects of the assessee as mentioned above falls under the limb “any other object of general public utilities”. The AO then refers to what constitute business , in legal parlance

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

17. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against order dated 22/03/2019 for A.Y.2014-15 and 07/08/2019 for A.Y.2015-16. As admitted by both the parties, the facts and issues involved in the aforesaid case for both the years are exactly pari-materia to the case of Anju Jhunjhunwala, wherein similar finding has been given by the ld. PCIT

VINOD KUMAR SARAF HUF,GORAKHPUR vs. PCIT,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

17. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against order dated 22/03/2019 for A.Y.2014-15 and 07/08/2019 for A.Y.2015-16. As admitted by both the parties, the facts and issues involved in the aforesaid case for both the years are exactly pari-materia to the case of Anju Jhunjhunwala, wherein similar finding has been given by the ld. PCIT

SARVESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

17. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against order dated 22/03/2019 for A.Y.2014-15 and 07/08/2019 for A.Y.2015-16. As admitted by both the parties, the facts and issues involved in the aforesaid case for both the years are exactly pari-materia to the case of Anju Jhunjhunwala, wherein similar finding has been given by the ld. PCIT

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

17. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against order dated 22/03/2019 for A.Y.2014-15 and 07/08/2019 for A.Y.2015-16. As admitted by both the parties, the facts and issues involved in the aforesaid case for both the years are exactly pari-materia to the case of Anju Jhunjhunwala, wherein similar finding has been given by the ld. PCIT

GOPI KRISHNA VINOD KUMAR HUF,GORAKHPUR vs. PCIT,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

17. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against order dated 22/03/2019 for A.Y.2014-15 and 07/08/2019 for A.Y.2015-16. As admitted by both the parties, the facts and issues involved in the aforesaid case for both the years are exactly pari-materia to the case of Anju Jhunjhunwala, wherein similar finding has been given by the ld. PCIT