COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XIII vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

TDS on or before the due date of filing of the return under Section 139(1), the sum shall be allowed as an expense in computing the income of the previous year. The two provisions are akin and the provisos to Sections 40(a)(ia) and 43B are to the same effect and for the same purpose

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. TALBROS (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

TDS on or before the due date of filing of the return under Section 139(1), the sum shall be allowed as an expense in computing the income of the ITA 24 & 218/2013 Page 26 of 27 previous year. The two provisions are akin and the provisos to Sections 40(a)(ia) and 43B are to the same effect

Commissioner of Income Tax XIII

TDS on or before the due date of filing of the return under Section 139(1), the sum shall be allowed as an expense in computing the income of the 2013:DHC:4434-DB ITA 24 & 218/2013 Page 26 of 27 previous year. The two provisions are akin and the provisos to Sections

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

53A of The Transfer of Property Act. Assessee further submitted that though capital gain accrued in assessment year 2008 – 09, would be chargeable only in the year when the actual sale deed is executed i.e. Page 7 of 53 assessment year 2010 – 11. Assessee submitted a revised computation of total income for assessment year 2010 – 11 , whereby the indexed cost

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

53A of The Transfer of Property Act. Assessee further submitted that though capital gain accrued in assessment year 2008 – 09, would be chargeable only in the year when the actual sale deed is executed i.e. Page 7 of 53 assessment year 2010 – 11. Assessee submitted a revised computation of total income for assessment year 2010 – 11 , whereby the indexed cost

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

53A of The Transfer of Property Act. Assessee further submitted that though capital gain accrued in assessment year 2008 – 09, would be chargeable only in the year when the actual sale deed is executed i.e. Page 7 of 53 assessment year 2010 – 11. Assessee submitted a revised computation of total income for assessment year 2010 – 11 , whereby the indexed cost

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

TDS Rs.712257/-; 18. Deletion of addition on account of reclassification of income from income from house property to income from business and profession.- Rs.9,40,52,455/-; 19. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of notional rent/additional annual letting value in respect of the vacant property. - Rs. 12,28,340/-; 20. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

TDS Rs.712257/-; 18. Deletion of addition on account of reclassification of income from income from house property to income from business and profession.- Rs.9,40,52,455/-; 19. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of notional rent/additional annual letting value in respect of the vacant property. - Rs. 12,28,340/-; 20. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objections of the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

TDS which was also deposited on 17.5.2001 and the recipient Gilt Facilities P. Ltd offered this amount to in its return of income in A.Y 2001-02 only. 40. On careful consideration of above submissions, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed facts and circumstances of the case at page 16 last operative para

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objections of the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

TDS which was also deposited on 17.5.2001 and the recipient Gilt Facilities P. Ltd offered this amount to in its return of income in A.Y 2001-02 only. 40. On careful consideration of above submissions, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed facts and circumstances of the case at page 16 last operative para

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

TDS on such payment u/s 194A which is in the nature of interest other than "Interest on securities". The assessee has stated that it is well settled according principle that amount received against a capital asset shall be treated as capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. Similarly amount said against a capital asses is added to cost of asset

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. ASHOK KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6105/Del/2017: Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Ashok Kumar, Central Circle-26, 13, Ashoka Avenue, Dlf Farms, New Delhi-110055 Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepc1877D

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882). Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, a lease which provides for the extension of the term thereof by a further term or terms shall be (deemed to be a lease for a term of not less than twelve years, if the aggregate of the term for which

DCIT CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI vs. MEENU SHUKLA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Deputy Commissioner Of Ms. Meenu Shukla, Income Tax, Circle-14(2), C-35, Sector-30, Room No.323, Cr Building, Vs Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Uttar Pradesh-201301 Pan-Afyps8002B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Monalisha Maity, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

TDS, the property was under construction, and payment was not made by the appellant directly but through one M/s K. N. Consultants Pvt. Ltd.- who was a loan recipient from the appellant as its income for the year under consideration. Before the ld. CIT(A), the appellant had contended that the sale of its property on which capital gain

AVINASH SAINI,GURGAON vs. WARD 1(5), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Deputy Commissioner Of Ms. Meenu Shukla, Income Tax, Circle-14(2), C-35, Sector-30, Room No.323, Cr Building, Vs Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Uttar Pradesh-201301 Pan-Afyps8002B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Monalisha Maity, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

TDS, the property was under construction, and payment was not made by the appellant directly but through one M/s K. N. Consultants Pvt. Ltd.- who was a loan recipient from the appellant as its income for the year under consideration. Before the ld. CIT(A), the appellant had contended that the sale of its property on which capital gain