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

26. For the applicability of proviso to Section 2(15), the activities of the trust should be carried out on commercial lines with intention to make profit. Where the trust is carrying out its activities on non-commercial lines with no motive to earn profits, for fulfilment of its aims and objectives, which are charitable in nature

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

26. For the applicability of proviso to Section 2(15), the activities of the trust should be carried out on commercial lines with intention to make profit. Where the trust is carrying out its activities on non-commercial lines with no motive to earn profits, for fulfilment of its aims and objectives, which are charitable in nature

KAHM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,VARANASI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 M/S Kahm Properties Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dc/Acit B-21/192, Kamaccha Central Circle Varanasai Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aacck7739F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. K. Jindal Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 09 2023

26 09 2023 Date of pronouncement: 29 09 2023 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, A.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 24.4.2023, passed by the ld. CIT(A)-3, Lucknow, in relation to penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

26 ITR 775 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd reported in (2019) 412 ITR 161/262. 5.1 In so far as the contention of the assessee that the conditions prescribed in Explanation 2 is not satisfied, ld. PCIT held that the order of the AO is erroneous

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

26 ITR 775 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd reported in (2019) 412 ITR 161/262. 5.1 In so far as the contention of the assessee that the conditions prescribed in Explanation 2 is not satisfied, ld. PCIT held that the order of the AO is erroneous

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

26 ITR 775 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd reported in (2019) 412 ITR 161/262. 5.1 In so far as the contention of the assessee that the conditions prescribed in Explanation 2 is not satisfied, ld. PCIT held that the order of the AO is erroneous

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

26 ITR 775 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd reported in (2019) 412 ITR 161/262. 5.1 In so far as the contention of the assessee that the conditions prescribed in Explanation 2 is not satisfied, ld. PCIT held that the order of the AO is erroneous

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

26 ITR 775 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd reported in (2019) 412 ITR 161/262. 5.1 In so far as the contention of the assessee that the conditions prescribed in Explanation 2 is not satisfied, ld. PCIT held that the order of the AO is erroneous