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

disallowance amounting to Rs. 2,81,24,572 on account of depreciation on assets other than building by treating entire income from leasing as income from house property without dividing the same proportionately between income from house property and income from business

WINGFLOW CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3157/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Wingflow Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, G-2/43A, Middle Circle, Ward-27(3), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacw0016D Assessee By : Sh. R. K. Mehra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2020

business income only and the Assessing Officer is not justified to disallow the business expenses. 9. The ld. CIT (A) held

TUBE ROSE ESTATES PVT. LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result ground number one – three of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

business income is to be disallowed. 05 The assessee stated that entire expenditure is allowable under the head income from

SELECT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

business income” instead of “income from house property” under section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act”). 1.3 That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) officer erred on facts and in law in consequentially upholding I.T.A. No.3751, 3775&3752/D/2013 & ,5401,5402&5241/D/2014 4 disallowance

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S JUBLIANT ORGANOSYS LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

business income. 13. that ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in deleting disallowance of expenses

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, MORADABAD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

business income. 13. that ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in deleting disallowance of expenses

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

business income. 13. that ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in deleting disallowance of expenses

SH. ASHOK MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed any portion of the expenditure claimed by M/s. Litolier, thus, implicitly accepting that the expenditure is duly incurred. Whether the expenditure is deducted against the Income from Business

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ASHOK MITTAL, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed any portion of the expenditure claimed by M/s. Litolier, thus, implicitly accepting that the expenditure is duly incurred. Whether the expenditure is deducted against the Income from Business

ASHOK MITTAL vs. ITO, WARD-24(3),,

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed any portion of the expenditure claimed by M/s. Litolier, thus, implicitly accepting that the expenditure is duly incurred. Whether the expenditure is deducted against the Income from Business

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ASHOK MITTAL, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed any portion of the expenditure claimed by M/s. Litolier, thus, implicitly accepting that the expenditure is duly incurred. Whether the expenditure is deducted against the Income from Business

CORONET HOTEL SERVICES & SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

Income from Business” and consequently disallowing the deduction of Business Expenses amounting to Rs. 53,84,457/- and depreciation amounting

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

income and 5 3. Interest Expense disallowed. 3,89,53,657 Ground No. 7 4. Disallowance u/s. 14A 24,57,661 Not contested 5. Disallowance u/s. 94(7) 1,09,525 Not contested 36. The main issue involved in the appeals is regarding taxing the profits realized on sale of shares as business

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WINGFLOW CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri N.K. Choudhry

income from house property are to be allowed as per the provision of section 24. Moreover, he observed that the assessee has not carried out any business activity during the year under consideration. The AO disallowed

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

business income against income from other sources held by ld. AO. 3(a) Interest on foreign deposits 3(b) miscellaneous income (transfer from UNDP grant) P a g e | 9 ITA Nos. 2566 to 2573 & 2910 to 2917/Del/2024 Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. 7.3 Issue No. 4:Whether the disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI vs. INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

business income against income from other sources held by ld. AO. 3(a) Interest on foreign deposits 3(b) miscellaneous income (transfer from UNDP grant) P a g e | 9 ITA Nos. 2566 to 2573 & 2910 to 2917/Del/2024 Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. 7.3 Issue No. 4:Whether the disallowance

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

business income against income from other sources held by ld. AO. 3(a) Interest on foreign deposits 3(b) miscellaneous income (transfer from UNDP grant) P a g e | 9 ITA Nos. 2566 to 2573 & 2910 to 2917/Del/2024 Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. 7.3 Issue No. 4:Whether the disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI vs. INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

business income against income from other sources held by ld. AO. 3(a) Interest on foreign deposits 3(b) miscellaneous income (transfer from UNDP grant) P a g e | 9 ITA Nos. 2566 to 2573 & 2910 to 2917/Del/2024 Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. 7.3 Issue No. 4:Whether the disallowance