Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (1.90 seconds)Documents citing
The Dcit(Exemptions),, Ahmedabad vs Gujarat Council Of Science City., ... on 20 March, 2023
M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement ... vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 31 January, 2025
It was further submitted, that the assessee had incurred expenditure of
Rs.11,08,84,212/- during the year on the given projects and placing reliance on the decisions
such as DCIT vs. Gujarat State Council (2014) 41 taxman.com 449 (Gujarat) and DIT vs. Society for
Developing Alternatives (2012) 18 taxman.com 364 (Delhi), it was submitted that such grants
were merely capital receipts and not Revenue receipts therefore, the addition made in this
regard was not sustainable. Finally, it was submitted that the addition of prior period expenses
claimed as expenditure during the year, was not warranted, because his expenses had not been
claimed in earlier years. In subsequent hearings, the assessee submitted that the order of the
Hon'ble ITAT granting registration under section 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961, passed in the case of
Moradabad Development Authority, had been challenged by the Revenue before the Lucknow
Bench of Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court had dismissed the appeal of the
Revenue, vide its judgment dated 3.05.2017. In view of this, it was prayed that the ld. CIT(A) may
kindly direct that the exemption under section 11 be granted to the assessee and the addition of
Rs.12,91,31,370/- may be deleted. With regard to the addition of Rs.8,68,50,000/-, being the
grant received from Tourism Department, Government of India and the U.P. Government. It was
23
submitted that the authority was bound to maintain a separate account of such receipts as per
Government order and the assessee had in fact spent much more than the receipts on this
account. Thus, there was no question of making any addition in this regard. With regard to prior
period expenses, it was submitted that the expenses had been claimed on the basis of payment
made during the financial year under consideration and as the assessee maintained its account
on cash basis. Therefore, the assessee was legally entitled to claim deduction on these expenses
under section 11. In its submissions for the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee quoted from
the judgments of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development
Authority and from the order of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Moradabad Development
Authority, to point out that the authorities like the appellant had been held to be eligible for
exemption under section 11 by the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal. In its submissions
to the ld. CIT(A), NFAC in the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, the assessee authority also
submitted a list of cases in which the Hon'ble Courts had held that exemption under section 11
were allowable to authorities like the assessee authority, where the jurisdictional High Court had
held that section 2(15) of the I.T. Act was inapplicable to the authorities like the assessee
authority and where the Courts had held, that other institutions whose objects were similar to
that of the assessee, were also entitled to exemption under section 11 of the I.T. Act. The
assessee further submitted, with regard to the stand of the ld. AO in basing his order on the
dismissal of the SLP in the case of Jammu Development Authority, that the dismissal of SLP in
limine could not operate as a confirmation of the reasoning in the decision sought to be
appealed against.
M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement ... vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 31 January, 2025
It was further submitted, that the assessee had incurred expenditure of
Rs.11,08,84,212/- during the year on the given projects and placing reliance on the decisions
such as DCIT vs. Gujarat State Council (2014) 41 taxman.com 449 (Gujarat) and DIT vs. Society for
Developing Alternatives (2012) 18 taxman.com 364 (Delhi), it was submitted that such grants
were merely capital receipts and not Revenue receipts therefore, the addition made in this
regard was not sustainable. Finally, it was submitted that the addition of prior period expenses
claimed as expenditure during the year, was not warranted, because his expenses had not been
claimed in earlier years. In subsequent hearings, the assessee submitted that the order of the
Hon'ble ITAT granting registration under section 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961, passed in the case of
Moradabad Development Authority, had been challenged by the Revenue before the Lucknow
Bench of Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court had dismissed the appeal of the
Revenue, vide its judgment dated 3.05.2017. In view of this, it was prayed that the ld. CIT(A) may
kindly direct that the exemption under section 11 be granted to the assessee and the addition of
Rs.12,91,31,370/- may be deleted. With regard to the addition of Rs.8,68,50,000/-, being the
grant received from Tourism Department, Government of India and the U.P. Government. It was
23
submitted that the authority was bound to maintain a separate account of such receipts as per
Government order and the assessee had in fact spent much more than the receipts on this
account. Thus, there was no question of making any addition in this regard. With regard to prior
period expenses, it was submitted that the expenses had been claimed on the basis of payment
made during the financial year under consideration and as the assessee maintained its account
on cash basis. Therefore, the assessee was legally entitled to claim deduction on these expenses
under section 11. In its submissions for the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee quoted from
the judgments of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development
Authority and from the order of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Moradabad Development
Authority, to point out that the authorities like the appellant had been held to be eligible for
exemption under section 11 by the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal. In its submissions
to the ld. CIT(A), NFAC in the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, the assessee authority also
submitted a list of cases in which the Hon'ble Courts had held that exemption under section 11
were allowable to authorities like the assessee authority, where the jurisdictional High Court had
held that section 2(15) of the I.T. Act was inapplicable to the authorities like the assessee
authority and where the Courts had held, that other institutions whose objects were similar to
that of the assessee, were also entitled to exemption under section 11 of the I.T. Act. The
assessee further submitted, with regard to the stand of the ld. AO in basing his order on the
dismissal of the SLP in the case of Jammu Development Authority, that the dismissal of SLP in
limine could not operate as a confirmation of the reasoning in the decision sought to be
appealed against.
M/S Ayodhya Development ... vs The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 31 January, 2025
It was further submitted, that the assessee had incurred expenditure of
Rs.11,08,84,212/- during the year on the given projects and placing reliance on the decisions
such as DCIT vs. Gujarat State Council (2014) 41 taxman.com 449 (Gujarat) and DIT vs. Society for
Developing Alternatives (2012) 18 taxman.com 364 (Delhi), it was submitted that such grants
were merely capital receipts and not Revenue receipts therefore, the addition made in this
regard was not sustainable. Finally, it was submitted that the addition of prior period expenses
claimed as expenditure during the year, was not warranted, because his expenses had not been
claimed in earlier years. In subsequent hearings, the assessee submitted that the order of the
Hon'ble ITAT granting registration under section 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961, passed in the case of
Moradabad Development Authority, had been challenged by the Revenue before the Lucknow
Bench of Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court had dismissed the appeal of the
Revenue, vide its judgment dated 3.05.2017. In view of this, it was prayed that the ld. CIT(A) may
kindly direct that the exemption under section 11 be granted to the assessee and the addition of
Rs.12,91,31,370/- may be deleted. With regard to the addition of Rs.8,68,50,000/-, being the
grant received from Tourism Department, Government of India and the U.P. Government. It was
23
submitted that the authority was bound to maintain a separate account of such receipts as per
Government order and the assessee had in fact spent much more than the receipts on this
account. Thus, there was no question of making any addition in this regard. With regard to prior
period expenses, it was submitted that the expenses had been claimed on the basis of payment
made during the financial year under consideration and as the assessee maintained its account
on cash basis. Therefore, the assessee was legally entitled to claim deduction on these expenses
under section 11. In its submissions for the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee quoted from
the judgments of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development
Authority and from the order of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Moradabad Development
Authority, to point out that the authorities like the appellant had been held to be eligible for
exemption under section 11 by the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal. In its submissions
to the ld. CIT(A), NFAC in the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, the assessee authority also
submitted a list of cases in which the Hon'ble Courts had held that exemption under section 11
were allowable to authorities like the assessee authority, where the jurisdictional High Court had
held that section 2(15) of the I.T. Act was inapplicable to the authorities like the assessee
authority and where the Courts had held, that other institutions whose objects were similar to
that of the assessee, were also entitled to exemption under section 11 of the I.T. Act. The
assessee further submitted, with regard to the stand of the ld. AO in basing his order on the
dismissal of the SLP in the case of Jammu Development Authority, that the dismissal of SLP in
limine could not operate as a confirmation of the reasoning in the decision sought to be
appealed against.
M/S Ayodhya Development Authority ... vs The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 31 January, 2025
It was further submitted, that the assessee had incurred expenditure of
Rs.11,08,84,212/- during the year on the given projects and placing reliance on the decisions
such as DCIT vs. Gujarat State Council (2014) 41 taxman.com 449 (Gujarat) and DIT vs. Society for
Developing Alternatives (2012) 18 taxman.com 364 (Delhi), it was submitted that such grants
were merely capital receipts and not Revenue receipts therefore, the addition made in this
regard was not sustainable. Finally, it was submitted that the addition of prior period expenses
claimed as expenditure during the year, was not warranted, because his expenses had not been
claimed in earlier years. In subsequent hearings, the assessee submitted that the order of the
Hon'ble ITAT granting registration under section 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961, passed in the case of
Moradabad Development Authority, had been challenged by the Revenue before the Lucknow
Bench of Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court had dismissed the appeal of the
Revenue, vide its judgment dated 3.05.2017. In view of this, it was prayed that the ld. CIT(A) may
kindly direct that the exemption under section 11 be granted to the assessee and the addition of
Rs.12,91,31,370/- may be deleted. With regard to the addition of Rs.8,68,50,000/-, being the
grant received from Tourism Department, Government of India and the U.P. Government. It was
23
submitted that the authority was bound to maintain a separate account of such receipts as per
Government order and the assessee had in fact spent much more than the receipts on this
account. Thus, there was no question of making any addition in this regard. With regard to prior
period expenses, it was submitted that the expenses had been claimed on the basis of payment
made during the financial year under consideration and as the assessee maintained its account
on cash basis. Therefore, the assessee was legally entitled to claim deduction on these expenses
under section 11. In its submissions for the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee quoted from
the judgments of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development
Authority and from the order of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Moradabad Development
Authority, to point out that the authorities like the appellant had been held to be eligible for
exemption under section 11 by the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal. In its submissions
to the ld. CIT(A), NFAC in the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, the assessee authority also
submitted a list of cases in which the Hon'ble Courts had held that exemption under section 11
were allowable to authorities like the assessee authority, where the jurisdictional High Court had
held that section 2(15) of the I.T. Act was inapplicable to the authorities like the assessee
authority and where the Courts had held, that other institutions whose objects were similar to
that of the assessee, were also entitled to exemption under section 11 of the I.T. Act. The
assessee further submitted, with regard to the stand of the ld. AO in basing his order on the
dismissal of the SLP in the case of Jammu Development Authority, that the dismissal of SLP in
limine could not operate as a confirmation of the reasoning in the decision sought to be
appealed against.
1