JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

x) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs CIT (Delhi High Court ) . (placed in PB XIII-B filed by revenue) (xi) Gujarat Housing Board (GHB) Vs DCIT (Ahemedabad ITAT, ITA No. 3297/Ahd/2016 dt. 16.11.2018) (JOPB No. VI) All the development authorities in Uttar Pradesh are constituted by ‘The Act’ and are functioning for the development of their respective cities. A list

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

24,51,350/- by ignoring the provisions of sec.13(8) and allowing exemption u/s 11(1 )(a) r.w. 11 (2) of the I.T. Act. (iii) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.10,16,129/-,on account of electricity expenses, by ignoring the facts brought on record by the AO that

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2) of the Act was/were not complied with. According to the second and third notices, the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income/furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 13. In the assessment order dated 10.12.2009, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were initiated

SH. SACHIN ARORA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

2. Facts, for convenience, are being taken from ITA No. 118/Agra/2015, the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 against the CIT(A)’s order confirming penalty of Rs.98,000/- imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. AIR information was received in respect of the assessee, as per which, cash deposits amounting to Rs.65