SHRI M M CREATIONS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai & M. M. Creations Acit T-481A, Baljeet Nagar Circle-24(1), Behind Patel Nagar Police Station New Delhi Vs. New Delhi. Pan : Aaefm9802A (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property, as it does not involve any commercial activity. In the paper book Ld. AR placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Kayram Hotels Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2015) 373 ITR 494 and decision Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd., reported

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

House Property' instead of „Income from Other Sources‟ completely disregarding the provisions of Section 56 of the Act and decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. a. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO and Hon‟ble DRP erred in not allowing proportionate tax depreciation and expenses under section ('u/s') 57 of the Act amounting to Rs.16

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. Onus to file correct and accurate particulars of income always lies on the assessee. In the current case, the assessee filed inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, I am satisfied to initiate penalty

NITIN GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 34(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Nitin Gupta, Vs. Ito, C-1/23, Ashok Vihar Phase-Ii, Ward-34(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aeapg4313C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2021 Order

house property at Rs.4,80,678/- as against nil income declared by the assessee by denying deduction on account of property tax, interest on loan, etc., as claimed by the assessee. I find, the ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the AO, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission

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 of 80% from the expenses deleted by the CIT(Appeals)/tribunal has been explained and supported by cogent

CIT vs. FRANCIS WACZIARG

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 of 80% from the expenses deleted by the CIT(Appeals)/tribunal has been explained and supported by cogent

CORONET HOTEL SERVICES & SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 6(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

House Property Rs. 82,49,588/- 5. Since the assessee during the assessment proceedings had filed the contention that the receipts are business receipts and no tax audit has been conducted by the assessee company. Accordingly penalty

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

house property is estimated at Rs. 1,31,761/-. Penalty Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are initiated

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House Property with respect to the property at New Delhi and Dehradun. The learned authorised representative also did not press the addition of RS. 1,53,586/– made by the learned assessing officer and sustained by the learned CIT – A with respect to the Hauz Khas property. 18. Coming to the first ground of appeal challenging the action

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House Property with respect to the property at New Delhi and Dehradun. The learned authorised representative also did not press the addition of RS. 1,53,586/– made by the learned assessing officer and sustained by the learned CIT – A with respect to the Hauz Khas property. 18. Coming to the first ground of appeal challenging the action

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House Property with respect to the property at New Delhi and Dehradun. The learned authorised representative also did not press the addition of RS. 1,53,586/– made by the learned assessing officer and sustained by the learned CIT – A with respect to the Hauz Khas property. 18. Coming to the first ground of appeal challenging the action

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House Property with respect to the property at New Delhi and Dehradun. The learned authorised representative also did not press the addition of RS. 1,53,586/– made by the learned assessing officer and sustained by the learned CIT – A with respect to the Hauz Khas property. 18. Coming to the first ground of appeal challenging the action

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House Property with respect to the property at New Delhi and Dehradun. The learned authorised representative also did not press the addition of RS. 1,53,586/– made by the learned assessing officer and sustained by the learned CIT – A with respect to the Hauz Khas property. 18. Coming to the first ground of appeal challenging the action

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House Property with respect to the property at New Delhi and Dehradun. The learned authorised representative also did not press the addition of RS. 1,53,586/– made by the learned assessing officer and sustained by the learned CIT – A with respect to the Hauz Khas property. 18. Coming to the first ground of appeal challenging the action

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. ASHOK KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6105/Del/2017: Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Ashok Kumar, Central Circle-26, 13, Ashoka Avenue, Dlf Farms, New Delhi-110055 Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepc1877D

house property u/s 24(a) of the I.T. Act. As per provisions of section 56 of the I.T. Act, income for sub-letting is considered to be income from other sources. Thus, the standard deduction of 30% on rental income claimed by the assessee is incorrect and unjustified. Hence, the standard deducting of Rs.13,57,351/- claimed by the assessee

M/S. MATA VAISHNO ESTATES,KARNAL vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in all the years is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

Penalty levied (Rs.) (Rs.) 2005-06 350477 127449 2006-07 575130 193588 2007-08 986963 332210 2008-09 1328693 410565 2009-10 1590242 453959 3. The brief facts apropos the issues are that the assessee is a partnership firm which has shown income from house property

DISCOVERY ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

penalty of Rs.42,35,247/- in respect of addition made by the learned Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.1,23,40,462/- on account of disallowance of depreciation on let out of property, which assessee had offered the rental income under the head ‘income from business and profession’ instead of ‘income from house

STERLING ASSOCIATES,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 2105/Del/2019, (A.Y. 2015-16) Sterling Associates, Vs. Acit Plot No. 32, Sector-18, Circle 4(1) Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Abifs6373H Appellant Respondent

property as the assessee has never provided any service to the tenant and of the maintenance cost was borne by tenant only. The Ld. Assessee's Representative has also provided details of maintenance recorded from the tenant in form of a chart to contend that the assessee had made expense of Rs. 54,760/- for lift maintenance and same