MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

house property at Rs. 6,30,000/- and loss from business and profession at (-) Rs. 17,93,290/-. Thus the current year’s loss has been claimed at Rs. 11,63,290/- to be carried forward

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

house property at Rs. 6,30,000/- and loss from business and profession at (-) Rs. 17,93,290/-. Thus the current year’s loss has been claimed at Rs. 11,63,290/- to be carried forward

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI II vs. MEDICARE INVESTMENTS LTD.

house property‟, „Capital gains‟ and „Income from other sources‟ or of income by way of interest on securities.” It was highlighted that in the present case, money which had flowed from JISCO came back to it with financing from the UTI and the assessee also claimed loss in the year under consideration, to claim set off against an income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABHINANDAN INVESTMENT LTD

house property‟, „Capital gains‟ and „Income from other sources‟ or of income by way of interest on securities.” It was highlighted that in the present case, money which had flowed from JISCO came back to it with financing from the UTI and the assessee also claimed loss in the year under consideration, to claim set off against an income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABHINANDAN INVESTMENT LTD

house property‟, „Capital gains‟ and „Income from other sources‟ or of income by way of interest on securities.” It was highlighted that in the present case, money which had flowed from JISCO came back to it with financing from the UTI and the assessee also claimed loss in the year under consideration, to claim set off against an income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABHINANDAN INVESTMENT LTD

house property‟, „Capital gains‟ and „Income from other sources‟ or of income by way of interest on securities.” It was highlighted that in the present case, money which had flowed from JISCO came back to it with financing from the UTI and the assessee also claimed loss in the year under consideration, to claim set off against an income

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

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

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

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

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

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

house property and the income had been business income. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate that the assessee had suffered a business loss of Rs. 87,87,033/- and as such, such loss being business loss ought to have been computed and allowed to be carried forward

SUCON INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- II, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

carried forward under this section for more than [four] assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which loss was first computed. (Explanation. -Where any part of the business of a company (other than a company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads "Interest on securities», "Income from house property

RISHI GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

house property”. Accordingly, ground No.3 is allowed for statistical purposes. 15. With regard to ground No.4 relating to disallowance of set off of carry forward loss

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

house property, profits and gains from business, capital gains and income from other sources, the total is arrived at and it is from this total that the losses of the current year and the brought forward losses from the past years are to be set off. The resultant figure gives the gross total income of the assessee from which deductions

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

house property, profits and gains from business, capital gains and income from other sources, the total is arrived at and it is from this total that the losses of the current year and the brought forward losses from the past years are to be set off. The resultant figure gives the gross total income of the assessee from which deductions

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

property he reassessed after giving an adequate opportunity to the appellant to represent and being heard in the matter. I.T.A. Nos.5169 & 5677/DEL/2017 3 iv. That the grounds of appeal submitted hereinabove be read with prejudice to one another in cases and circumstances wherever the context so requires.” 3. The brief facts and the background of the case, apropos the issues

ANANT RAJ LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2,CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

property he reassessed after giving an adequate opportunity to the appellant to represent and being heard in the matter. I.T.A. Nos.5169 & 5677/DEL/2017 3 iv. That the grounds of appeal submitted hereinabove be read with prejudice to one another in cases and circumstances wherever the context so requires.” 3. The brief facts and the background of the case, apropos the issues

HEIDELBERG CEMENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaheidelberg Cement India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Infinity Circle-2, Towers, Dlf, Cybercity, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm2359J

loss of ₹113,02,65,434/-. During the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2011-12, certain items were reclassified under the head “building, other than residential” instead of “plant and machineries” as claimed by the assessee in its return of income. Accordingly, depreciation on such items was recomputed @10% instead of 15% as claimed by the assessee

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

house property. The observations of the ld. CIT (Appeals) that the interest claimed in the computation has already been allowed by the Assessing Officer is totally misplaced as the Assessing Officer has not allowed the assessee to carry forward the loss