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

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

154 of the Act to give effect to the cancellation of sale deeds of the property resulting into the assessed LTCG as there is no prescribed form of such application. 50. The assessee further submitted that once copies of the cancellation deeds of the sale of the property along with the consent decree of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High

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

154 of the Act to give effect to the cancellation of sale deeds of the property resulting into the assessed LTCG as there is no prescribed form of such application. 50. The assessee further submitted that once copies of the cancellation deeds of the sale of the property along with the consent decree of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High

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

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

154 of the Act to give effect to the cancellation of sale deeds of the property resulting into the assessed LTCG as there is no prescribed form of such application. 50. The assessee further submitted that once copies of the cancellation deeds of the sale of the property along with the consent decree of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High

RAM KISHORE RATHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 53(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 308/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Kishore Rathore, Vs. Acit, Circle-53(1), C/O M/S Rra Taxindia New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Pan:Aaapr4260P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

rectification under Section 154, the self same issue cannot be the subject matter of reassessment by taking recourse to Section 147 of the Act. Thus, on the facts that are available today, as far as the assessment year 2003-2004 is concerned, there are two proceedings, one under Section 154 and another under Section 147 of the Act. The jurisdiction

NAVNEET DUTTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 67(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

rectification application u/s 154 for the A.Y. 2011-12 on dated 12.02.2016, 21,04.2016 and 11.07.2016 submitting following points respectively :- 3 ITA No.2299/Del./2018 1. That the assessee filed his original return of income on 10.01.2012 declaring total income of Rs.40,22,587/-. In the said return due to clerical/typographical error, the assessee could not claim loss from house property

AMAL ALLANA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

rectification application u/s 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the order has been rectified by the AO and the grievance against these grounds no longer survived. In view of these facts the ground number 1 and 3 are dismissed as not pressed. In ground No.2, the appellant has impugned the 6.1.2 addition made

HIRDEY RAM,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), GURGAON

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2014-15 Hirdey Ram, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), C/O L.C. Yadav & Company, Gurgaon 205, Arcadia, South City-2, Haryana - 122102 Gurgaon, Haryana – 122018 (Pan: Aarpy8597K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Property”. This return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee filed rectification application to rectify the order u/s. 143(1) for allowing his claim of interest paid u/s 24(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 31,17,879/-. However, the AO held that it is not a mistake apparent from record

REEVA SOOD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 31(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

rectification u/s 154 as there was no mistake apparent from record. On merits, he submitted that the assessee had sold the property during the relevant AY 2013-14 and in the previous 4 year i.e. July 2012, the assessee had entered into agreement for sale of the property and assessee received consideration in the month of November 2012 only

RAJ KUMAR AASUDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-44(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarraj Kumar Aasudhia, Vs. Ito, Wz-29/3/1, Budela, Vikashpuri, Ward-44(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Adqpa9196E

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act stating that the exemption u/s 54 of the Act for a sum of Rs 21,96,885/- was wrongly granted by stating that the said exemption is available only for one house property

BHUSHAN KUMAR UPPAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Manish Uppal (Legal Heir Of Vs. Acit, Bhushan Kumar Uppal), Central Circle-29, N-55, Panchsheel Park, New New Delhi Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaapu3998D

house property and other sources. 5. We find that the assessee had filed his regular return for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 31.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 11,33,54,239/- and the tax liability thereon was arrived at Rs. 3,83,25,170/-. Against this tax liability of Rs. 3,83,25,170/-, the assessee was eligible

ASHISH DHAWAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiashish Dhawan, Vs. Acit, 55-A, Jor Bagh, Circle-31(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Adlpd9621N (Appellant) (Respondent)

property for purchase of gadgets the action of the learned assessing officer was confirmed and on this ground the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 17. Against this order, the appeal has been preferred before us. 18. The ld AR firstly submitted that above adjustment cannot made u/s 154 of the Act as there is no mistake apparent from

ACIT CIRCLE-1(3)(1), INT. TAX., NEW DELHI vs. RAJAN GOVIL, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 7525/Del/2019 (A.Y 2014-15)

rectification of mistake in the assessment order. 5 ITA. 7525/Del/2019 ACIT Vs. Rajan Govil, ND 5.5 Appellant contended that the notice u/s 154 of the Act was not served on him. Accordingly, the appellant claimed that the order passed u/s 154 is null and void. Further, the appellant took a plep that the issue involved in this case is highly

MANISHA ARORA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-29(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Manisha Arora, Income Tax Officer, C-4, Greater Kailash, Ward-29(1), South Delhi Vs Delhi Delhi-110048 Pan-Adtpa8801D Assessee Revenue

154 of the Act dated 02.07.2019 upon receipt of notice u/s 221(1) of the Act dated 20.06.2019. It was submitted that the assessee was under bonafide belief that the rectification application filed on 02.07.2019 was pending before the AO and was hopeful of relief and the vacation of the demand. It was further submitted that on merits, the assessee

PAWAN RAJ GOYAL ,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI

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

House Property', income from medical professionals under head 3 ITA No.575/Del./2022 'Income from business or profession' and 'Income from other source'. The case is heard and discussed with the Ld. A/R. After discussion, the total income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2018-19 is computed as under:- Returned Income : Rs. 46,21,330/- Assessed income

SUBHASH BANA,NEW DELHI vs. CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

house property and income under the head ‘Other Sources’. The assessee filed return of income on 29.07.2016 declaring taxable income of Rs. 99,02,280/- and a loss to be carried forward of Rs. 98,68,866/-. 4. Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was received on accepting the returned income with carry forward of loss

M/S. MILESTONE REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimilestone Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Ito, 8-B, Rajendra Park, Pusa Road, Ward-6(4), New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan:Aadcm8707G (Appellant) (Respondent)

rectification order dated 25.03.2010 for AY 2005-06 passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer, Ward 6(4) New Delhi. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant company engaged in the business of real estate filed its return of income on 28.10.2005 declaring income of Rs. 541011/-. Subsequently, notice u/s

SUPREME BRAHMAPUTRA (JV),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Property Services Vs. TDS CPC TDS CPC Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad – 211010 A-7, Mahipalpur, Brahmaputra House, New Delhi-110037 Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Rakhi Vimal, SR. DR Date of hearing : 25.08.2020 Date of order : 31.08.2020 ORDER PER R.K PANDA, AM: This batch of appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the separate orders

DRAIPL-BRAHMAPUTRA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED (JV),NEW DELHI vs. TDS, CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Property Services Vs. TDS CPC TDS CPC Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad – 211010 A-7, Mahipalpur, Brahmaputra House, New Delhi-110037 Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Rakhi Vimal, SR. DR Date of hearing : 25.08.2020 Date of order : 31.08.2020 ORDER PER R.K PANDA, AM: This batch of appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the separate orders