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 at New Delhi of Rs 1.70 Crores. The assessee should have been allowed deduction only with respect to one property, therefore the assessee has claimed excess deduction u/s 54 of the act, and therefore there is an escapement of income to that extent. 45. In the present case, the assessee has filed his return of income for assessment

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 at New Delhi of Rs 1.70 Crores. The assessee should have been allowed deduction only with respect to one property, therefore the assessee has claimed excess deduction u/s 54 of the act, and therefore there is an escapement of income to that extent. 45. In the present case, the assessee has filed his return of income for assessment

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

property is correct. Otherwise, in the event direction\nissued by the Ld. PCIT, if, at all, be accepted then the claim of\ndepreciation of the assessee to the tune of Rs.60.39 crores has to be\naccepted and the same would be a loss of tax to the revenue and thus, in\nfact, on the contrary prejudicial to the interest

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

property is correct. Otherwise, in the event direction\nissued by the Ld. PCIT, if, at all, be accepted then the claim of\ndepreciation of the assessee to the tune of Rs.60.39 crores has to be\naccepted and the same would be a loss of tax to the revenue and thus, in\nfact, on the contrary prejudicial to the interest

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 at such notional figure of Rs. 1,78,76,700/- on gross basis vide order dated 27th December 2017. 3. Before the CIT (Appeals), the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer and stated that the inclusion of ALV of whole of the building on notional basis by assuming that the whole building has been given

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 at such notional figure of Rs. 1,78,76,700/- on gross basis vide order dated 27th December 2017. 3. Before the CIT (Appeals), the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer and stated that the inclusion of ALV of whole of the building on notional basis by assuming that the whole building has been given

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 at such notional figure of Rs. 1,78,76,700/- on gross basis vide order dated 27th December 2017. 3. Before the CIT (Appeals), the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer and stated that the inclusion of ALV of whole of the building on notional basis by assuming that the whole building has been given

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 at such notional figure of Rs. 1,78,76,700/- on gross basis vide order dated 27th December 2017. 3. Before the CIT (Appeals), the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer and stated that the inclusion of ALV of whole of the building on notional basis by assuming that the whole building has been given

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 at such notional figure of Rs. 1,78,76,700/- on gross basis vide order dated 27th December 2017. 3. Before the CIT (Appeals), the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer and stated that the inclusion of ALV of whole of the building on notional basis by assuming that the whole building has been given

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANJALA EXHIBITORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

house property. 13. During the first appellate proceeding the CIT (A) also considered the issue of consistency and held against the assessee by passing impugned order. The relevant operative parts of the impugned order read as under: "2.6.2 I have considered the rival submissions on the issue of consistency. It is trite law that the principle of res judicata does

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

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

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

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

reassess any income, either based on return of income or search material. Thus, this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. Other grounds raised by the assessee shall be discussed while deciding the appeal of the revenue on merits. Now we will come to the various issues and additions made by the AO which have been challenged by both

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

reassess any income, either based on return of income or search material. Thus, this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. Other grounds raised by the assessee shall be discussed while deciding the appeal of the revenue on merits. Now we will come to the various issues and additions made by the AO which have been challenged by both

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

reassess any income, either based on return of income or search material. Thus, this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. Other grounds raised by the assessee shall be discussed while deciding the appeal of the revenue on merits. Now we will come to the various issues and additions made by the AO which have been challenged by both