M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

gains of business or profession', would be taxed as 'income from other sources'. 11.1 He submitted that in the present case, without prejudice to the aforesaid submission that such lease rental would be taxed as 'business income', the same can be taxed under the head 'income from other sources' and accordingly, expenses incurred for earning of such income would

AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) - NATIONAL E-ASSESMENT ORDER, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

capitalized and is being amortized under the provision of section 35BB of the Act. 14. The assessee was granted telecom license for initial term of 20 years upon the payment of one time entry fee. However, the license holder as per the Rules of DoT is also required to pay recurring fee on periodic basis towards use of the telecom

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

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

gained access to new market for its products, which enabled it to enhance its sales. d) The export commission is also paid by the appellant to HMCL for procuring export orders using their network and infrastructure in relation to exports. e) The primary purpose of payment of export commission, therefore, it would be appreciated, was ceding of overseas territory

SHRI M M CREATIONS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai & M. M. Creations Acit T-481A, Baljeet Nagar Circle-24(1), Behind Patel Nagar Police Station New Delhi Vs. New Delhi. Pan : Aaefm9802A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 194I is not conclusive of taxability of the related income under the head ‘income from house property’. The conclusions arrived at by the Ld. CIT (A) thus do not call for any interference.” 24. Respectfully following decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (supra) and discussions herein above

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 226/Del/2011 (Arising Ita No.2720/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2007-08

194I on the ground that the said payment constitutes rent, but also correspondingly, the AA1 had offered the said sum of Rs. 150 crores as rent and has claimed the credit of such TDS amount. The department has accepted this position in the assessment of AAI and whence that is so and in the return of income the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 226/Del/2011 (Arising Ita No.2720/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2007-08

194I on the ground that the said payment constitutes rent, but also correspondingly, the AA1 had offered the said sum of Rs. 150 crores as rent and has claimed the credit of such TDS amount. The department has accepted this position in the assessment of AAI and whence that is so and in the return of income the assessee

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI vs. VLCC HEALTH CARE LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekaddl.Cit, Special Range 9, Vs. Vlcc Health Care Ltd., New Delhi. M – 14, Commercial Complex, Greater Kailash Part Ii, New Delhi - 110 048. (Pan : Aaacc4808P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Ms. Rinky Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 Date Of Order : 09.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 08.11.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2009 For The Ay 2009-10 Declaring An Income Of Rs.14,34,56,042. The Case Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 2 143(2) & 142 (1) Along With Questionnaire Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Filed The Relevant Information As Called For. 3. Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Slimming & Beauty Services. The Assessee Has Not Disclosed Any Other Source Of Income During The Year. During Assessment Proceedings, Ao Observed That The Assessee Is Carrying Substantial Credit Balances As Current Liabilities Under The Head ‘Advance From Customers’. The Assessee Was Asked To Explain Along With Supporting Documents. Assessee Vide Its Letter Dated 22.11.2011 Submitted As Under :-

gain any control in the said set up or premises but merely used the experience, skills, services and set up of said third party. AO reproduced the relevant clauses of the franchisee agreement in particular Clauses E & F. He also reproduced the obligations of franchisee at page 8 of the assessment order. The AO observed that based on the above

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CAREER LAUNCHER INDIA LTD

In the result, the first three substantial questions of law in ITA

capital expenditure. It is part of the price paid for the Noida land; it is an adjunct to the price and hence part of it. It is therefore not allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1). 13. We accordingly answer the substantial questions of law No.2 for the assessment year 2004-05 and No.IV for the assessment year

CIT vs. CAREER LAUNCHER INDIA LTD

In the result, the first three substantiaf questions of larry in ITA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital expenditure. It is part of the price paid for the Noida land; it is an adjunct to the price and hence part of it. lt is.therefore not allowable as a deduction under Section 37(I). 13. We accordingly answer the substantial questions of law No.2 for tlre assessment year 2004-05 and No.IV for the assessment year

CIT vs. CAREER LAUNCHER INDIA LTD

In the result, the first three substantiaf questions of larry in ITA

capital expenditure. It is part of the price paid for the Noida land; it is an adjunct to the price and hence part of it. lt is.therefore not allowable as a deduction under Section 37(I). 13. We accordingly answer the substantial questions of law No.2 for tlre assessment year 2004-05 and No.IV for the assessment year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

capital requirement of the JVC ii. Assessee to pay retainership fees of Rs. 3.30 crores plus cars/car & maintenance, travel & entertainment expenditure, per annum to M/s. Percept Finserve P Ltd.(unrelated party), for media management and marketing services. iii. Assessee to reimburse the sum of operating cost of the JVC. Thus, according to the aforesaid terms of the MOU, the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

capital requirement of the JVC ii. Assessee to pay retainership fees of Rs. 3.30 crores plus cars/car & maintenance, travel & entertainment expenditure, per annum to M/s. Percept Finserve P Ltd.(unrelated party), for media management and marketing services. iii. Assessee to reimburse the sum of operating cost of the JVC. Thus, according to the aforesaid terms of the MOU, the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

capital requirement of the JVC ii. Assessee to pay retainership fees of Rs. 3.30 crores plus cars/car & maintenance, travel & entertainment expenditure, per annum to M/s. Percept Finserve P Ltd.(unrelated party), for media management and marketing services. iii. Assessee to reimburse the sum of operating cost of the JVC. Thus, according to the aforesaid terms of the MOU, the assessee

R N SAHNI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD - 32(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the above directions

Bench: CIT(A) & again considering the said amount as income from house property resulting into double additions.3. The Id. CIT(A) is wrong in confirming the disallowance of Rs.30985/- out of the total disallowance amounting to Rs.1893103/- u/s 43-B on account of unpaid taxes since the assessee has furnished all the bills/vouchers & copy of Tax Audit Report duly marked.

capital gains (loss) and other sources of income as taxable income. 1.4. Apart from the above the assessee is maintaining his personal assets and prepared statement of affairs separately for such assets/income. The assessee has disclosed income from dividend from shares / mutual fund amounting to R. N. Sahni vs. ITO Rs.83,08,087/- which was claimed as exempt

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

capitalized only when activities that are necessary to prepare the Asset for its intended use or sale are in progress. However, the fact of the matter remains that the income of an assessee is required to be computed and assessed in accordance with provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Under the Income Tax Act there is no such requirement

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

capitalized only when activities that are necessary to prepare the Asset for its intended use or sale are in progress. However, the fact of the matter remains that the income of an assessee is required to be computed and assessed in accordance with provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Under the Income Tax Act there is no such requirement