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

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)

246 (All.)]. 7. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 3,58,61,640/- being the excess shown in the 'income and expenditure' account. The authorities below have erroneously disallowed the benefit of exemption u/s 11 claimed by the appellant. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that various

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)

246 (All.)]. 7. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 3,58,61,640/- being the excess shown in the 'income and expenditure' account. The authorities below have erroneously disallowed the benefit of exemption u/s 11 claimed by the appellant. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that various

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

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

disallowance of Rs 35,99,93,000 being the payment made to UP Jal Nigam for sewage system. (13) Because the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 2,64,68,984 in respect of Interest on FOR out of Path Kar receipts. (14) Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts