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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 44AD. AO is justified in adopting a net profit rate of 8%. I.T.A Nos. 200 & 201/Agra/2016 12 Accordingly, addition of Rs. 9,94,137/- made on this account is hereby confirmed. Assessee in Ground No. 7(d) has also raised the issue of allowing depreciation

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 44AD. AO is justified in adopting a net profit rate of 8%. I.T.A Nos. 200 & 201/Agra/2016 12 Accordingly, addition of Rs. 9,94,137/- made on this account is hereby confirmed. Assessee in Ground No. 7(d) has also raised the issue of allowing depreciation

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

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

7 been arbitrarily rejected. The addition may kindly be directed to be deleted. 11. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 43,94,120/- being the expenses incurred by the appellant on construction of road. The supporting evidence filed before the authorities below has arbitrarily been rejected. The addition