TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nullity and both deserve to be quashed / set aside for total want of application of mind and being passed in most arbitrary manner without appreciating the past "settled" decisions in "own" case of assessee and further without considering the settled legal position as laid down by jurisdictional high court and Hon'ble Apex Court on subject issues which are adversely decided against assessee. ii) That orders of AO and Ld. First Appellate Authority respectively passed u/s. 143(3) and section 250 are both invalid in so far as aspect of holding of assessee's activities fall foul of section 2(15) of the Act (that is assessee's activities are not charitable in nature u/s. 2(15) which is grossly perverse and patently illegal on face of it. iii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....separately. Thus, the AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 48,18,44,518/-. Thereafter, assessee filed a petition u/s. 154 of the Act, on which the AO rectified his mistake of considering Rs. 51,93,79,021/- being amount transferred by the assessee directly to "Infrastructure Development Fund A/c" instead of correct amount of Rs. 9,19,31,085/-. AO further rectified the addition on account of depreciation making it to be NIL by determining the total income at Rs. 5,28,92,280/- vide his order u/s. 154 dated 24.3.2017. Aggrieved, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 28.8.2014 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Against the above order, Assessee is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case in ITA No. 4125/Del/2017 vide order dated 04.02.2022 relevant to assessment year 2012-13. It is further submitted that recently in two decisions of the Coordinate Bench this issue is fully covered i.e. ITAT, Delhi 'E' Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Meerut Development Authority ITA no. 1657/Del/2018 AY 2014-15 vide order dated 27.01.2025 and in another case of 'C' Bench, ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. Kanpur Development Authority in ITA No. 1655/Del/2018 dated 12.03.2025. Thus, it is submitted that respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, the appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 6. The aforesaid factual position has not been controverted by the ld. DR for the Revenue, but he has supported he order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on identical issue. Coordinate Bench of Tribunal by relying upon the decision dated 21.04.2017 rendered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority and another decision dated 04.01.2018 rendered by coordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Moradabad Development Authority vs. ACIT (Exemption) in ITA No. 4631 & 4632/Del/2007, decided the issue in favour of the assessee by returning following findings:- "3. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The Hon'bie Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs.Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, vide judgment delivered on 21.4.2021, has decided similar issue in assessee's favour. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of section 2(15) of the Act, as its object is to provide shelter to the homeless people. 11. So there being no material/evidence on record supporting the case of the Revenue to reach the conclusion that the assessee was conducting its affairs on commercial lines with the profit earning motive and as such the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is not attracted in this case and the assessee was entitled to exemption provided u/s. 11 of the Act. Moreover, no cogent reason or distinguishable facts have been brought on record by the Revenue if the year under consideration is different from earlier years, i.e., A.Yrs. 2009-10 to 2011-12, which have already been decided in favour of the assessee. So, in these circumstances, the Revenue autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is no material on record to appreciate that during the year under consideration, expenditure was more than the receipts. This factual position has not been controverted by the Id. DR for the Revenue, but he has supported the order passed by the Id. CIT(A). 13. Undisputedly, the expenditure made by the assessee-authority during the year under consideration was not more than the receipt, as is evident from the income & expenditure account for the period ending 31.03.2012, available at page 6 & 7 of the paper book. Ld. AR for the assessee taken us to para 32 of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad available at page No. 141/144 of the paper book, wherein the identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by re....