ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house property. Therefore, in the light of the statement of the caretaker of the property, the submissions of the assessee we hold that entire ALV cannot be assessed as income of the assessee. Even the ALV which was determined by the AO was arrived taking artificial rental value of Rs.1200 per sq.ft. and determined the rental of Rs.14

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DLEHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house property. Therefore, in the light of the statement of the caretaker of the property, the submissions of the assessee we hold that entire ALV cannot be assessed as income of the assessee. Even the ALV which was determined by the AO was arrived taking artificial rental value of Rs.1200 per sq.ft. and determined the rental of Rs.14

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house property. Therefore, in the light of the statement of the caretaker of the property, the submissions of the assessee we hold that entire ALV cannot be assessed as income of the assessee. Even the ALV which was determined by the AO was arrived taking artificial rental value of Rs.1200 per sq.ft. and determined the rental of Rs.14

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house property. Therefore, in the light of the statement of the caretaker of the property, the submissions of the assessee we hold that entire ALV cannot be assessed as income of the assessee. Even the ALV which was determined by the AO was arrived taking artificial rental value of Rs.1200 per sq.ft. and determined the rental of Rs.14

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 11. It is noticeable from the aforesaid grounds that the Revenue did not specifically challenge the finding of the CIT (Appeals) that income from the three properties was taxable under the head ‘income from business or profession’ and not under the head ‘income from house

CIT vs. FRANCIS WACZIARG

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 11. It is noticeable from the aforesaid grounds that the Revenue did not specifically challenge the finding of the CIT (Appeals) that income from the three properties was taxable under the head ‘income from business or profession’ and not under the head ‘income from house

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. YELLOW SAPPHIRE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Housing and Development Co. 93 Taxmann.com 502 (SC) as under: 6 Yellow Sapphire International Pvt. Ltd. “The impugned judgment and order dated 11.05.2011 has relied upon a judgment of the same date by a Division Bench of the High Court in ITA No. 462 of 2009. Having perused the judgment and having heard arguments, we are of the view that

GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

deeming in nature and even though the appellant may be justified to plead that the and therefore, if the annual let-table value as per clause (a) is higher than that as per clause (b), the value as per clause (a) is to be taken. Though the valuation by NDMC is for levy of property tax, however, such value

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

dividend u/s 2(22)(a) of the Act. (vi) In the case of issue of bonus shares (as also demerger), no property is being conveyed to the shareholder in as much as the property therein is comprised in the existing shareholding of the allotee. There is as such no case of a gift, the shareholder only receiving his own property

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

dividend u/s 2(22)(a) of the Act. (vi) In the case of issue of bonus shares (as also demerger), no property is being conveyed to the shareholder in as much as the property therein is comprised in the existing shareholding of the allotee. There is as such no case of a gift, the shareholder only receiving his own property

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ATUL BANSAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanatul Bansal, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 16 Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri Delhi. New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Acit, Central Circle 16, Vs, Atul Bansal Delhi Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Order : 06.02.2026 O R D E R

house property during the year along with proof of expenses incurred on the improvement of the property. Further, assessee was asked to furnish relevant document to justify exemption claimed u/s 54 of the Act. Since the assessee failed to furnish above said evidences in support of the claim, the Assessing Officer rejected the exemption claimed by the assessee and added

SH. ATUL BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanatul Bansal, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 16 Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri Delhi. New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Acit, Central Circle 16, Vs, Atul Bansal Delhi Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Order : 06.02.2026 O R D E R

house property during the year along with proof of expenses incurred on the improvement of the property. Further, assessee was asked to furnish relevant document to justify exemption claimed u/s 54 of the Act. Since the assessee failed to furnish above said evidences in support of the claim, the Assessing Officer rejected the exemption claimed by the assessee and added

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. NEENA KANDHARI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Housing and Land Development Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, 2015-TIOL- 1144-ITAT-DEL  ITO vs. ABP Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., 2016-TIOL-311-ITAT- KOL 6 I.T.A. No.812/DEL/2018 It has been clearly held in the cases cited above that advance given by the company for purchase of land cannot amount to deemed dividend. It was further held that

ARCHANA SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraarchana Sharma Vs. Dcit Ii F/130, Nehru Nagar, Circle – 1 Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan No. Ayups 6374 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Shri Pushkar Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajinder Jha, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.12.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Ghaziabad Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

house, situated at Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad for a consideration of Rs.3.6 crores for the purpose of expansion of the hospital. For the purchase of the property assessee had entered into a sale agreement with vendor on 7th Feb 2013. As per the agreement, advance payment aggregating to Rs.90 lakh towards purchase of the property was made

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-III vs. KABUL CHAWLA

deemed dividend income under Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act corresponding to the respective protective assessments in the hands of two entities, i.e. STPPL and PPDPL. 13. Replying to the above arguments, Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the Assessee, referred to the observations in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and the subsequent judgements and emphasised that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-III vs. KABUL CHAWLA

deemed dividend income under Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act corresponding to the respective protective assessments in the hands of two entities, i.e. STPPL and PPDPL. 13. Replying to the above arguments, Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the Assessee, referred to the observations in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and the subsequent judgements and emphasised that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-III vs. KABUL CHAWLA

deemed dividend income under Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act corresponding to the respective protective assessments in the hands of two entities, i.e. STPPL and PPDPL. 13. Replying to the above arguments, Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the Assessee, referred to the observations in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and the subsequent judgements and emphasised that

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

deemed dividend under section 2 (22) (e) of the Act and confirmed the other additions. Hence, the assessee preferred appeal. 7. In respect of the issue relating to taxing, the gains arising from the sale of shares, learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee entered into share purchase agreement with various buyers in respect of shares of all the wholly