DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

revised on 29.03.2012 declared total income of Rs. 23,38,41,220/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IAB at Rs. 377,32,99,956/- and deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 202,88,73,784/-. The assessee company had ownership, leasehold rights and was in possession of land admeasuring 26.50 acres situated at Sector 24 & 25A. DLF Cyber City, DLF City, Gurgaon

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

revised on 29.03.2012 declared total income of Rs. 23,38,41,220/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IAB at Rs. 377,32,99,956/- and deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 202,88,73,784/-. The assessee company had ownership, leasehold rights and was in possession of land admeasuring 26.50 acres situated at Sector 24 & 25A. DLF Cyber City, DLF City, Gurgaon

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

revised on 29.03.2012 declared total income of Rs. 23,38,41,220/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IAB at Rs. 377,32,99,956/- and deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 202,88,73,784/-. The assessee company had ownership, leasehold rights and was in possession of land admeasuring 26.50 acres situated at Sector 24 & 25A. DLF Cyber City, DLF City, Gurgaon

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

revised on 29.03.2012 declared total income of Rs. 23,38,41,220/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IAB at Rs. 377,32,99,956/- and deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 202,88,73,784/-. The assessee company had ownership, leasehold rights and was in possession of land admeasuring 26.50 acres situated at Sector 24 & 25A. DLF Cyber City, DLF City, Gurgaon

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

revised on 29.03.2012 declared total income of Rs. 23,38,41,220/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IAB at Rs. 377,32,99,956/- and deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 202,88,73,784/-. The assessee company had ownership, leasehold rights and was in possession of land admeasuring 26.50 acres situated at Sector 24 & 25A. DLF Cyber City, DLF City, Gurgaon

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

house property on which standard deduction claim of 7.61 crores has been made and notional rental income calculated for these properties and the issue of depreciation as a part of P&L account. 4. The writing off of Rs. 336.47 crores on account of amicable settlement regarding a property with madras race club, is not allowable claim as impairment provision

MR. ABHISAR SHARMA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

house property at Rs.81,609/- was declared. This return was processed u/s 23 143(1) of the Act on 4th July, 2006. This case was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 on 27th March, 2012 and an order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.11,03,270/- was passed on 28th

SHUMA KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee failed on all five grounds raised before us

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishuma Kalra, Vs. Pr. Cit-12, A-28, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaipk8142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property is furnished. He further submitted that the assessee has submitted the conveyance deed of the purchase of property at Rohini, which clearly establishes that investment was made in an eligible asset for claiming of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Thus, he submitted that the learned assessing officer has enquired the issue in its completeness and thereafter passed

LATE SMT. GIRIRAJ KAUR L/H SRI RAVINDER GILL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishilate Smt. Giriraj Kaur, Vs. Ito, C/O. L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Ward-1(2), 861, Mangal Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan: Dtppk0005J (Appellant) (Respondent)

property situated at GT Road. The AO had already examined this aspect but the Commissioner had directed a re-inquiry for merely a change of opinion which is impermissible u/s 263 of the Act. CIT was required to arrive at a definite conclusion as is held by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. International Travel House

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s. 143(3)(ii) of the Act, for the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 respectively. 2. The assessee company is a limited company engaged in the business of construction of commercial complex and to act as builders, colonizers etc. The case of assessee is that it has constructed a commercial complex on a plot of land measuring 1.447 acres

ADITYA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) - 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1503/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Aditya Gupta Pcit (Central)-1, 8/48, West Punjabi Bagh, Vs. Room No.338, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Amzpg2185M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

revised u/s 263 of the Act. 2.1 That since the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that the order of assessment dated 12.5.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act had been framed after due examination of claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act and such claim has been accepted not only by the learned Assessing

M/S HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Honda Motors Ltd, Dcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg0812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Housing Project Ltd 343 ITR 329. In the end he submitted that the order passed by the ld CIT in revising the order of the ld Assessing Officer u/s 263 is not sustainable as there is no error in the order of ld Assessing Officer and it is not prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 8. We have carefully considered

SH. BRAHAM DEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

property in question it would not affect the tax liability of the assessee in any manner. 37 Assessment year: 2011-12 23. Next ground taken by the CIT to invoke the provisions contained u/s 263 is the assessee has made investment of Rs.5,52,00,000/- for the year ending 31.03.2011 but AO has not made any enquiry regarding disallowance

SATYA NARAIN PRAKASH PUNJ,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2006-07

revision under section 263 of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that both the issues raised by him in notice under Section 263 were before the A.O. and as such the jurisdiction on this issue under Section 263 cannot

TECHNIP UK LTD.,GURGAON vs. DIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

revise an order of assessment u/s 263 of the Act only if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The twin conditions, namely (a) order is erroneous and (b) prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue must be cumulatively satisfied before the ld. CIT can seek to exercise revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

u/s 263 for the impugned assessment year, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the reassessment order was set aside by the CIT exercising revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 to the limited extent of examining issues relating to deduction under sections 80lA/80IB of the Act. In other words, the reassessment order dated 04.03.2013 under section

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

revised income from house property as income from profit and gain business (para 3.6 of assessment order for A.Y. 2013-14; para 3.5 of assessment order for A.Y. 2014-15; para 3.5 of assessment order for A.Y. 2015-16) It is hence requested that the matter may very kindly be adjourned to any other regular date & oblige ... The petitioner shall

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

revised income from house property as income from profit and gain business (para 3.6 of assessment order for A.Y. 2013-14; para 3.5 of assessment order for A.Y. 2014-15; para 3.5 of assessment order for A.Y. 2015-16) It is hence requested that the matter may very kindly be adjourned to any other regular date & oblige ... The petitioner shall

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

revised income from house property as income from profit and gain business (para 3.6 of assessment order for A.Y. 2013-14; para 3.5 of assessment order for A.Y. 2014-15; para 3.5 of assessment order for A.Y. 2015-16) It is hence requested that the matter may very kindly be adjourned to any other regular date & oblige ... The petitioner shall