IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 717/JPR/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09)

ACIT, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

Urban Improvement Trust, UIT Building near Cad Circle, CAD Circle, Kota 324 007 PAN No.: AAALU 0110D ...... Respondent ITA Nos. 794 to 797/JPR/2024 (A.Ys. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2016-17)

DCIT, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

Urban Improvement Trust, UIT Building near Cad Circle, CAD Circle, Kota 324 007 PAN No.: AAALU 0110D ...... Respondent ITA Nos. 731, 773, 774, 803, 811, 812, 813, /JPR/2024 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2016-17, 2007-08 & 2009-10 )

Urban Improvement Trust, UIT Building near Cad Circle, CAD Circle, Kota 324007 PAN No.: AAALU 0110D ...... Appellant Vs.

ACIT, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Respondent Appellant by : Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &

Mr. Mukesh Soni, Adv. Adv., Ld. ARs Respondent by : Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 11/08/2025 Date of pronouncement : 11/08/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M:

These appeals by assessee and revenue are directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 22.03.2024, 27.03.2024, 31.03.2024 & 30.03.2024 respectively passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

Revenue’s Appeal The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal vide ITA No.

717/JPR/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09) as under:-

1 Order of the ld. CIT (A) is bad in law and needs to be quashed.

2 Whether order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is justified, ignoring the facts and circumstances of the present case and without applying the correct preposition of law.

3 Whether Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the AO has erred in not allowing the benefit provided in the order passed by the respective CIT(A) and Hon'ble ITAT while computing the total income of the Appellant Trust in spite of the facts that the Hon'ble ITAT in para 6 of order dated 08.06.2016 has directed to set aside the orders passed by the authorities below.

4 Whether Id. CIT (A) is justified in holding that the AO has erred in not following the decision of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kota in the case of Appellant Trust itself in earlier Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and thereby not allowing the following expenditure while computing income of the appellant trust under head 'profits and gains from business or profession'-A. The non plan expenditure incurred for development work amounting to Rs.3390.12 Lakhs. B. The expenditure incurred for development of Kachhi Basti amounting to Rs.49.67 Lakhs. C. The expenditure for development work included under head "Deposit Work" amounting to Rs.92.23 Lakhs. D. The expenditure for repair and maintenance of vehicles under head 'Machinery & Plant' amounting to Rs.4.57 Lakhs. E. The expenditure of Rs. 100.00 Lakhs under head payment to RUIDP. F. The expenditure of Rs.25.95 Lakhs incurred for social welfare under head Mahila and BAL Vikas Pariyojana.

5. Whether Id. CIT (A) is justified in holding that the AO has erred while computing total income of the appellant trust, in including the following amounts which are collected on behalf of Nagar Nigam and deposited to Nagar Nigam: 15 percent of Rs. 9131.79 Lakhs under head "Receipts from sale of residential and commercial plots". 15 percent of Rs. 435.21 Lakhs, under "Receipts from sale of constructed House/shops. 2/3 of Rs.5928.01 Lakhs under the head "Receipts from sale of land in Rajiv Gandhi Nagar Yojana.

6 Whether Id. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the AO has erred while computing total income of the appellant trust, in including the following amounts which are collected on behalf of the State Government and deposited to the State Government 40% of Rs.189.98 Lakhs under head receipts from land regularization and conversion. 60% of Rs.315.09 Lakhs under head Receipts from Nagariya Kar (Lease Rental)

7 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT