“Section 24(1)(vi)”

Section References (mined)Section 24Section 24(1)(vi)4 judgments

Judgments citing Section 24(1)(vi)

ACIT, Circle- 15(1), New Delhi vs. Leon Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6154/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07/07/2017 deleted the addition of Rs.8,34,43,668/- u/s 24(b) of the Act made by the A.O. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Department of Revenue preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 24(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

ACIT, Circle- 15(1), New Delhi vs. Leon Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6155/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), and the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07/07/2017 partly allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee by deleting the addition of Rs.2,67,51,318/-.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 24(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Aryan Arcade Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 163/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year :2012-13 Dcit, Cir.1(1) M/S.Aryan Arcade P.Ltd. Rajkot. Vs C/O. Milestone Property Mg Basement Grant Central Mall Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT(DR)

Section 23Section 24Section 250(6)

CBDT Circular which specifically allowed the interest paid on fresh loans to repay the original loan was with respect to old provision of section 24(1)(vi), which since then had been replaced with new section 24(b). The applicability of the said CBDT was to be restricted only

Anil Nanatty Chandran, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6905/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(3)Section 24(1)(vi)Section 250Section 68

under Section 143(3) of the Act after making (i) disallowance of interest of INR 1,50,000/- claimed by the Appellant under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Act, (ii) the addition/disallowances of agriculture income amounting to INR 10,88,450/-, (iii) disallowance under Section ... appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed (a) addition on account of disallowance of interest of INR 1,50,000/- under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Act, (b) disallowance of agriculture income amounting of INR 6,88,450/-, and (c) disallowance amounting