ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATBIR SINGH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri O.P.Kantacit, Satbir Singh, Circle-33(1), 4/73, Wea Krishna Vs. New Delhi Market, Karolbagh, New Delhi Pan:Aogps9991A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. Dr, Respondent By : Sh. Y.P. Rawala, Ca

house property’. In respect of depreciation on above two properties, the ld learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held as under

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

house property. Accordingly, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the sums aggregating to Rs.18,19,71,202/- is directed to be deleted. 18. So far as the other judgments, which have been referred by the ld. CIT (A) in the impugned order as well as by the ld. D.R., we are not venturing into distinguishing the same, because

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

house property Less : Property 25,43,443 Tax Less : Interest 73,13,20,464 Less : 623,17,72,906 Depreciation

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

house property Less : Property 25,43,443 Tax Less : Interest 73,13,20,464 Less : 623,17,72,906 Depreciation

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

house property Less : Property 25,43,443 Tax Less : Interest 73,13,20,464 Less : 623,17,72,906 Depreciation

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

housing, township, integrated townships for work and residence, constructing and operating holiday homes, etc. In an assessment finalized under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income at `75,30,19,546/- as against the returned income of `34,22,05,962/- wherein the difference between the assessee and the Revenue was on account

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

housing, township, integrated townships for work and residence, constructing and operating holiday homes, etc. In an assessment finalized under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income at `75,30,19,546/- as against the returned income of `34,22,05,962/- wherein the difference between the assessee and the Revenue was on account

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

housing, township, integrated townships for work and residence, constructing and operating holiday homes, etc. In an assessment finalized under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income at `75,30,19,546/- as against the returned income of `34,22,05,962/- wherein the difference between the assessee and the Revenue was on account

M/S. KAILASH DWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

house property and depreciation claimed in profit and loss account in respect such property cannot be allowed. Firstly, It is submitted

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KENMORE VIKAS INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2012-13

house property. The reply given by the assessee was not convincing to the AO as renting of surplus area of factory building, which was a business asset, amounted to income from other source instead of property income. The assessee had claimed depreciation

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

NILE TECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

depreciation of the property, the rental income is to be taxed under the head ‘income from business and profession’. 10. First of all, when the revenue has been accepting the rental income of the assessee qua the property in question for the last 15 years as ‘income from house

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

depreciation against the Income from House Property. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the depreciation brought forward from

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

depreciation against the Income from House Property. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the depreciation brought forward from

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

depreciation\nallowance amounting to Rs.60,39,49,813/-, which is much more\nthan the statutory allowance proposed to disallowed to the\nassessee.\n(ii)\nThat the above practice of treating this rental income as income\nfrom house property

YASH SUNEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-42(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

house property and 1 floor was actually claimed to have been rented; that the property was not capitalised as business asset and no depreciation

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

depreciation\nallowance amounting to Rs.60,39,49,813/-, which is much more\nthan the statutory allowance proposed to disallowed to the\nassessee.\n(ii)\nThat the above practice of treating this rental income as income\nfrom house property

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

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation claimed on the block of assets by following the assessment order for the AY 2009-10. Since we have dismissed the appeal of the revenue for the said assessment year as above, by following the order in the said appeal, this appeal of the revenue is also dismissed. Assessee’s appeal no. 4736/Del/2017 34. Now we will take