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 as such is eligible for deduction u/s /s 24(a) of the Act @ 30% of such income. So, finding no illegality or perversity in the findings returned by ld. CIT (A) on this issue, this ground is determined against the Revenue." 5.1 We find ourselves in agreement with the finding recorded by ITAT

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 as such is eligible for deduction u/s /s 24(a) of the Act @ 30% of such income. So, finding no illegality or perversity in the findings returned by ld. CIT (A) on this issue, this ground is determined against the Revenue." 5.1 We find ourselves in agreement with the finding recorded by ITAT

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 as such is eligible for deduction u/s /s 24(a) of the Act @ 30% of such income. So, finding no illegality or perversity in the findings returned by ld. CIT (A) on this issue, this ground is determined against the Revenue." 5.1 We find ourselves in agreement with the finding recorded by ITAT

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 as such is eligible for deduction u/s /s 24(a) of the Act @ 30% of such income. So, finding no illegality or perversity in the findings returned by ld. CIT (A) on this issue, this ground is determined against the Revenue." 5.1 We find ourselves in agreement with the finding recorded by ITAT

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 as such is eligible for deduction u/s /s 24(a) of the Act @ 30% of such income. So, finding no illegality or perversity in the findings returned by ld. CIT (A) on this issue, this ground is determined against the Revenue." 5.1 We find ourselves in agreement with the finding recorded by ITAT

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

block assessment. 21. We would begin by reproducing for clarity entire statement of the respondent/assessee recorded on oath under Section 132(4) of the Act on 25th November, 1999, which is as under:- ―Statement of Shri Mahender Singh Aggarwal s/o Sh. Mangat Ram Aggarwal aged 54 years R/0 2/34 Roop Nagar Delhi recorded on oath during the search and seizure

VISHWADHARMAYATAN TRUST vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

house for his disciples. Likewise the third floor of the building at C-18, 19, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi was occupied by him for his personal use as evidenced during the survey conducted in the premises on 19th July 1996. Therefore, Mr. Chandra Swami was in full control of the Trust properties and all its activities. The Trust never

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF ASSETS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

block of 15 years will expire in Assessment Year 2022-23 but on facts, the deduction will 'be available upto Assessment Year 2021-22. 1.5 That each Developer has got the approval from the Board of Approval ("BoA"). Ministry of Commerce for setting up Information Technology & ITES SEZ (IT & ITES SEZ). on land parcel owned by the Developer

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF ASSETS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

block of 15 years will expire in Assessment Year 2022-23 but on facts, the deduction will 'be available upto Assessment Year 2021-22. 1.5 That each Developer has got the approval from the Board of Approval ("BoA"). Ministry of Commerce for setting up Information Technology & ITES SEZ (IT & ITES SEZ). on land parcel owned by the Developer

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF ASSETS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

block of 15 years will expire in Assessment Year 2022-23 but on facts, the deduction will 'be available upto Assessment Year 2021-22. 1.5 That each Developer has got the approval from the Board of Approval ("BoA"). Ministry of Commerce for setting up Information Technology & ITES SEZ (IT & ITES SEZ). on land parcel owned by the Developer

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

House Property. OTHER GROUNDS RETAINED. 2.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in disallowing the entire expenditure of Rs. 9,46,22,358/- u/s 37(1) as capital nature on the ground that the same related to issue of equity shares of the company to selected Qualified Institutional Buyers

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

House Property. OTHER GROUNDS RETAINED. 2.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in disallowing the entire expenditure of Rs. 9,46,22,358/- u/s 37(1) as capital nature on the ground that the same related to issue of equity shares of the company to selected Qualified Institutional Buyers

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

House Property. OTHER GROUNDS RETAINED. 2.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in disallowing the entire expenditure of Rs. 9,46,22,358/- u/s 37(1) as capital nature on the ground that the same related to issue of equity shares of the company to selected Qualified Institutional Buyers

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

Property” instead of the head “Profits and Gains from the Business or profession” as claimed b the Appellant?” 15. The relevant facts as noted by the Hon'ble Apex Court can be summarized in the following manner:- " The Maharashtra Housing and Developing Authority (MHADA) had constructed a building. However, there was a reservation for Municipal retail market on the plot

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

house property income, details whereof is appearing at page 58 of the paper book filed before us. In the event, the assessee is directed to reclassify the rent receipts as business income, the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction of the above expenses along with an additional depreciation claim of Rs.60,19,18,398/- being 10% of the building

SHUMA KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee failed on all five grounds raised before us

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishuma Kalra, Vs. Pr. Cit-12, A-28, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaipk8142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Block and Pocket A-1, Sector 32, Rohini, Delhi including registration, stamp duty and DDA charges etc vide deed of registration dated 09.04.2011 and Rs 640335/- as construction cost of residential house property. Thus total investment in Residential house was Rs 13628643/-. 4. The ld AO mentioned that case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for verification

M/S RAMAIREN PROPERTIES P. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10

Assessing Officer taxed the rent receipt by the assessee under the head “income from other source” after allowing the expenses incurred towards house 3 AY: 2009-10 tax payment. Before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee produced copy of sale deed through which the assessee purchased the property. After consideration of the submissions of the assessee

M/S. TERA ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we allow ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishitera Estates Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, S-395, Greater Kailash, Parti-Ii, Range-16, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabct5729R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessment Order dated 12.12.2008. IV. In the computation of the income filed with the return the appellant had additionally claimed a loss from business at Rs. 34,00,538/- which was sought to be set off with the income from house property. It is on this issue that the A.O. held that as the assessee Company has not carried

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Block, Unitech Year: 2014- Gurgaon (Hr) House, South City-1, 15 Gurgaon (Hr) TAN/PAN: AAACG2857J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CA Respondent by: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 25 09 2018 Date of pronouncement: 21 12 2018 O R D E R AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed