Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.31 seconds)
Documents citing Sarvodaya Mutual Benefit Trust, ... vs Ito, Vellore on 2 November, 2017

M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement ... vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 31 January, 2025

She also submitted that it 36 had been held by the ITAT in Sarvodaya Agency vs. ITO (1989) 34 TTJ 214,that an Obiter Dicta was also worthy of respect and therefore, even if the findings of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority and Ors on the issue of Infrastructure Development and Reserve Fund (IDRF) were considered an Obiter Dicta, it still was worthy of consideration as the views of the Hon'ble High Court. On the issue of tourism grant, the ld. AR pointed out that the same had been provided by the Government for the beautification of the city and because it was a part of the corpus, therefore, it was not routed through the income and expenditure account. The ld. AR pointed out that the grant was for promoting tourism and it had not been allowed because the ld. AO had denied the exemption. However, it had been judicially held that such grants were in the nature of capital receipts and therefore, they could not be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. She, therefore, prayed that the addition made on this account may be deleted. With regard to the issue of prior period expenses, the ld. AR submitted that the authority followed a cash system of a counting and therefore, was claiming prior period expenses paid during the year, as application of income. If section 11 was allowed to the assessee then it was also entitled to deduction for all application of income during the year. On the issue of claim of depreciation under section 11 (6) in the income and expenditure account, the ld. AR submitted that while it was there in the income and expenditure account, it did not reflect in the computation filed under section 11. She further submitted that, if the exemption under section 11 was allowed to the assessee, then the claim of depreciation was not allowable but if the assessee was to be assessed under the head, 'profits and gains from business or profession' then depreciation was allowable to it. In support of her arguments, the ld. AR also filed a detailed written submission prepared by Sh. Mradul Agarwal CA, which is reproduced as under: -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 119 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement ... vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 31 January, 2025

She also submitted that it 36 had been held by the ITAT in Sarvodaya Agency vs. ITO (1989) 34 TTJ 214,that an Obiter Dicta was also worthy of respect and therefore, even if the findings of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority and Ors on the issue of Infrastructure Development and Reserve Fund (IDRF) were considered an Obiter Dicta, it still was worthy of consideration as the views of the Hon'ble High Court. On the issue of tourism grant, the ld. AR pointed out that the same had been provided by the Government for the beautification of the city and because it was a part of the corpus, therefore, it was not routed through the income and expenditure account. The ld. AR pointed out that the grant was for promoting tourism and it had not been allowed because the ld. AO had denied the exemption. However, it had been judicially held that such grants were in the nature of capital receipts and therefore, they could not be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. She, therefore, prayed that the addition made on this account may be deleted. With regard to the issue of prior period expenses, the ld. AR submitted that the authority followed a cash system of a counting and therefore, was claiming prior period expenses paid during the year, as application of income. If section 11 was allowed to the assessee then it was also entitled to deduction for all application of income during the year. On the issue of claim of depreciation under section 11 (6) in the income and expenditure account, the ld. AR submitted that while it was there in the income and expenditure account, it did not reflect in the computation filed under section 11. She further submitted that, if the exemption under section 11 was allowed to the assessee, then the claim of depreciation was not allowable but if the assessee was to be assessed under the head, 'profits and gains from business or profession' then depreciation was allowable to it. In support of her arguments, the ld. AR also filed a detailed written submission prepared by Sh. Mradul Agarwal CA, which is reproduced as under: -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 119 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Ayodhya Development ... vs The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 31 January, 2025

She also submitted that it 36 had been held by the ITAT in Sarvodaya Agency vs. ITO (1989) 34 TTJ 214,that an Obiter Dicta was also worthy of respect and therefore, even if the findings of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority and Ors on the issue of Infrastructure Development and Reserve Fund (IDRF) were considered an Obiter Dicta, it still was worthy of consideration as the views of the Hon'ble High Court. On the issue of tourism grant, the ld. AR pointed out that the same had been provided by the Government for the beautification of the city and because it was a part of the corpus, therefore, it was not routed through the income and expenditure account. The ld. AR pointed out that the grant was for promoting tourism and it had not been allowed because the ld. AO had denied the exemption. However, it had been judicially held that such grants were in the nature of capital receipts and therefore, they could not be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. She, therefore, prayed that the addition made on this account may be deleted. With regard to the issue of prior period expenses, the ld. AR submitted that the authority followed a cash system of a counting and therefore, was claiming prior period expenses paid during the year, as application of income. If section 11 was allowed to the assessee then it was also entitled to deduction for all application of income during the year. On the issue of claim of depreciation under section 11 (6) in the income and expenditure account, the ld. AR submitted that while it was there in the income and expenditure account, it did not reflect in the computation filed under section 11. She further submitted that, if the exemption under section 11 was allowed to the assessee, then the claim of depreciation was not allowable but if the assessee was to be assessed under the head, 'profits and gains from business or profession' then depreciation was allowable to it. In support of her arguments, the ld. AR also filed a detailed written submission prepared by Sh. Mradul Agarwal CA, which is reproduced as under: -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 119 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Ayodhya Development Authority ... vs The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 31 January, 2025

She also submitted that it 36 had been held by the ITAT in Sarvodaya Agency vs. ITO (1989) 34 TTJ 214,that an Obiter Dicta was also worthy of respect and therefore, even if the findings of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority and Ors on the issue of Infrastructure Development and Reserve Fund (IDRF) were considered an Obiter Dicta, it still was worthy of consideration as the views of the Hon'ble High Court. On the issue of tourism grant, the ld. AR pointed out that the same had been provided by the Government for the beautification of the city and because it was a part of the corpus, therefore, it was not routed through the income and expenditure account. The ld. AR pointed out that the grant was for promoting tourism and it had not been allowed because the ld. AO had denied the exemption. However, it had been judicially held that such grants were in the nature of capital receipts and therefore, they could not be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. She, therefore, prayed that the addition made on this account may be deleted. With regard to the issue of prior period expenses, the ld. AR submitted that the authority followed a cash system of a counting and therefore, was claiming prior period expenses paid during the year, as application of income. If section 11 was allowed to the assessee then it was also entitled to deduction for all application of income during the year. On the issue of claim of depreciation under section 11 (6) in the income and expenditure account, the ld. AR submitted that while it was there in the income and expenditure account, it did not reflect in the computation filed under section 11. She further submitted that, if the exemption under section 11 was allowed to the assessee, then the claim of depreciation was not allowable but if the assessee was to be assessed under the head, 'profits and gains from business or profession' then depreciation was allowable to it. In support of her arguments, the ld. AR also filed a detailed written submission prepared by Sh. Mradul Agarwal CA, which is reproduced as under: -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 119 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1