Delhi Development Authority v. ITO

53 ITD 19Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1995#21648 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 2(28A)Section 57(iii)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 198Section 199

Judgments citing Delhi Development Authority v. ITO

ATUL SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6055/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh.Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Atul Sharma 207, Lawyers Vs. Acit Chamber, Delhi High Court Circle – 61 (1) New Delhi-110003 New Delhi Pan No.Aarps6964J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 57

…and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) of the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported in 263 Taxman 237. Similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. ITO reported in 53 ITD 19; decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Beacon Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 377 ITR 237 and Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Sawhney Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (TDS) reported in 201 ITD 259.” 10. In the view of the above observation and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon her…

ATUL SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5803/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad & Sh. M.Balaganeshmr. Atul Sharma Vs. Ito 207, Lawyers Chamber Circle – 37(1) Delhi High Court, New Delhi New Delhi-110 003 Pan No. Aarps 6964 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Audhisthir Mehtani, Adv., Mr. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Shrey Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh:

Section 143(3)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mr. Atul Sharma Vs. ITO 207, Lawyers Chamber Circle – 37(1) Delhi High Court, New Delhi New Delhi-110 003 PAN No. AARPS 6964 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Audhisthir Mehtani, Adv., Mr. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. and Shri Shrey Jain, Adv. Revenue by Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. and Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 05.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 12.09.2024 ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. This appeal in I…

SMT. JASWINDERJIT KAUR,CANADA vs. DCIT (INDL. TAXATION), CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1307/CHANDI/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrisanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1307/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Mohit Dhiman, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Madit Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 2

…ressed to the appellant dt. 04.03.2015. 6. That the Id CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition without appreciating the decisions in case of CIT vs HP Housing Board (2012) 18 taxmann.com 129 (High Court of H.P) , Delhi Development Authority vs ITO (1995) (53 ITD 19) and GDA vs Dr NK Gupta (Revision Petition no. 2244/199 National Commission decided on 18/09/2002.) 7. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Id. DCIT by solely applying the decision of IT AT Mumbai in case of Kumarpal Mohanlal Jain vs ITO (ITA no. 7231 MUM 2010) and treated the compensation received by appellant as in…

M/S. DLF INFO CITY DEVP.(CHENNAI) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL.CIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 2566/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 115J

…s exercise, he has to treat it as long term capital gains. 5. We have gone through the record, and the decisions in Rita Sunil Manaktala vs. Income Tax Officer (Mumbai) (In ITA No. 255/Mum/2013) and Delhi Development Authority vs. Income Tax Officer (1995) 53 ITD 19 (Delhi), wherein it is held that the composition paid on account of delay in 8 construction of a building would represent a non taxable capital receipt. In the decisions cited by the assessee the coordinate benches of this Tribunal held that the compensation paid on account of construction is a non taxable capital receipt. We have also perused th…