Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Infrastructure Development in Lucknow Development Authority , ... vs Acit (E), Lucknow on 10 March, 2022Matching Fragments
(iii)accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible for registration under section 12A in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble ITAT
8. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was obliged to follow the rule of law relating to taxation and compute the income of the appellant on the basis of statement of income as based on the audit report in form 10-B, as was applicable in its case, by virtue of its being registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act. (a)That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 41,94,07,414/- that was transferred to IDRF because appellant had been maintaining Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) as per the Notification dated 15.01.1998 , and money transferred to this fund were to be utilized for the purposes of projects as specified by a committee formed by the State Government itself under the said Notification, and the same could not be treated to be belonging to the appellant or the receipts of taxable nature in its hands and also because the money was collected under IDRF, to the extent the same belonged to appellant, had duly been accounted for in the audited books of accounts and shown in Balance Sheet. This amount is held under trust for being utilized as and when requisition was made by the committee formed by the State Govt., as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of CIT (Central) Vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., reported in (1979)116 ITR 60, and the same could not have been treated to be the income in the hands of Appellant liable for taxation.
(iii)accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible for registration under section 12A in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble ITAT
(iv) in pursuance of the said order dated 25.07.2005, the Ld. CIT had already issued certificate of registration under section 12A dated 17.01.2006 which covers the year under reference also.
9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was obliged to follow the rule of law relating to taxation and compute I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 the income of the appellant on the basis of statement of income as based on the audit report in form 10-B, as was applicable in its case, by virtue of its being registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act. (a)That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 41,94,07,414/- that was transferred to IDRF because appellant had been maintaining Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) as per the Notification dated 15.01.1998 , and money transferred to this fund were to be utilized for the purposes of projects as specified by a committee formed by the State Government itself under the said Notification, and the same could not be treated to be belonging to the appellant or the receipts of taxable nature in its hands and also because the money was collected under IDRF, to the extent the same belonged to appellant, had duly been accounted for in the audited books of accounts and shown in Balance Sheet. This amount is held under trust for being utilized as and when requisition was made by the committee formed by the State Govt., as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of CIT (Central) Vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., reported in (1979)116 ITR 60, and the same could not have been treated to be the income in the hands of Appellant liable for taxation.
9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was obliged to follow the rule of law relating to taxation and compute the income of the appellant on the basis of statement of income as based on the audit report in form 10-B, as was applicable in its case, by virtue of its being registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act. (a)That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.9,75,46,843/- that was transferred to IDRF because appellant had been maintaining Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) as per the Notification dated 15.01.1998 , and money transferred to this fund were to be utilized for the purposes of projects as specified by a committee formed by the State Government itself under the said Notification, and the same could not be treated to be belonging to the appellant or the receipts of taxable nature in its hands and also because the money was collected under IDRF, to the extent the same belonged to appellant, had duly been accounted for in the audited books of accounts and shown in Balance Sheet. This amount is held under trust for being utilized as and when requisition was made by the committee formed by the State Govt., as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of CIT (Central) Vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., reported in (1979)116 ITR 60, and the same could not have been treated to be the income in the hands of Appellant liable for taxation.
9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was obliged to follow the rule of law relating to taxation and compute the income of the appellant on the basis of statement of income as based on the audit report in form 10-B, as was applicable in its case, by virtue of its being registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act. (a)That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,86,93,534/- transferred to IDRF because appellant had been maintaining Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) as per the Notification dated 15.01.1998 , and money transferred to this fund were to be utilized for the purposes of projects as specified by a committee formed by the State Government itself under the said Notification, and the same could not be treated to be belonging to the appellant or the receipts of taxable nature in its hands and also because the money was collected under IDRF, to the extent the same belonged to appellant, had duly been accounted for in the audited books of accounts and shown in Balance Sheet. This amount is held under trust for being utilized as and when requisition was made by the committee formed by the State Govt., as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of CIT (Central) Vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., reported in (1979)116 ITR 60, and the same could not have been treated to be the income in the hands of Appellant liable for taxation.