DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

house property' and thereby made disallowance of deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,13,71,259/-. It is the case

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

house property' and thereby made disallowance of deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,13,71,259/-. It is the case

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM vs. DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD., GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

house property' and thereby made disallowance of deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,13,71,259/-. It is the case

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

house property' and thereby made disallowance of deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,13,71,259/-. It is the case

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

house property and not business income or income from other sources. The Assessing Officer granted standard deduction of 30% as per Section 24 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further disallowed

DELTA COLONIZERS LTD.,NEWDELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE -7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed on ground no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2014-15

disallowance of 30% deduction claimed by the assessee company under the head income from house property against rent for fixture

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

House Property” as declared by the Assessee in the original return of income and also disallowed an amount of Rs. 28,51,200/- paid

GURPREET SINGH DHILLON,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowance of interest paid on housing loan (borrowed capital) referring to the third proviso to section 24 for the reason that the assessee failed to furnish certificate for interest, whereas the interest is allowable in entirety in the case of let out property

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI, DELHI

disallowed to the\nassessee.\n(ii)\nThat the above practice of treating this rental income as income\nfrom house property

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) DELHI-2, JHANDEWALAN NEW DELHI, DELHI

disallowed to the\nassessee.\n(ii)\nThat the above practice of treating this rental income as income\nfrom house property

ASHUTOSH GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2013-14

property. Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.19,22,524 being 50% of interest paid of Rs.38,45,045. This was sustained by the learned CIT (Appeals). 8. The learned counsel before us submits that the learned CIT (Appeals) sustained the disallowance observing that the details during the appellate proceedings, the date of payment given by the assessee by way of disbursal letter

DLF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

disallowance of expenses u/s 14A on estimate basis and no working has been submitted as per the provision of Rule 8D r.w.s 14A of the Act? 4. Whether the Ld. NFAC under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law is justified in deleting the addition of account of reclassification of Income from house property

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER | ITA NO. 674/Del/2024 | | A.YR.: 2018-19 | | DLF LIMITED, | | 9TH FLOOR, DLF CENTRE, | | SANSAD MARG, | | NEW DELHI – 110 001 | | (PAN: AAACD3494N) | | (APPELLANT) | | VS. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI | | (RESPONDENT) | AND | ITA NO. 712/DEL/2024 | | AY 2018-19 | | DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1), | | NEW DELHI | | ROOM NO. 404, 4TH FLOOR, | | C.R. BUILDING, | | I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 2 | | (RESPONDENT) | | VS.

disallowance of expenses u/s 14A on estimate basis and no working has been submitted as per the provision of Rule 8D r.w.s 14A of the Act? 4. Whether the Ld. NFAC under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law is justified in deleting the addition of account of reclassification of Income from house property

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV

house property’. 13. Once it is held that the income from the three properties is taxable under the head ‘income from business or profession’ depreciation has to be allowed under the provisions of Section 32 of the Act. Similarly, disallowance

RVM EDUCATION (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

house property income. So these electricity expenses are not a fit case for disallowance and no disallowance is called for in the present

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. AJAY GOEL, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

property is considered, it\nwould continue to be owned by co-owners. Joint ownership is different from absolute\nownership. In the case of residential unit, none of the co-owners can claim that he is\nthe owner of residential house. Ownership of a residential house, in our opinion, means\nownership to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, where a house

ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. RCUBE PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma Ita No. 6879/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16

house property income; rather its business income which is covered by CBDT circular no.9/2014 dated 23.04.2014 in which the issue of treatment of expenditure incurred for development of roads and highways in Buitd-On-Transfer (BOT) agreements is dealt with. Relevant extracts of the above extracts is inter-alia as under:- "It has come to the notice of the Board

H.L. MALHOTRA AMD COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property declared by the assessee at ₹1,20,00,000/- as business income and disallowed standard deduction claimed under