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

10. There is no dispute with regard to eligibility of claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the assessee has been DLF Cyber City Developers Ltd AYs: 2011-12 to 2015-16 notified as undertaking of the Central Govt vide notification dated 28.07.2010 running an approved industrial park in terms

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

10. There is no dispute with regard to eligibility of claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the assessee has been DLF Cyber City Developers Ltd AYs: 2011-12 to 2015-16 notified as undertaking of the Central Govt vide notification dated 28.07.2010 running an approved industrial park in terms

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

10. There is no dispute with regard to eligibility of claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the assessee has been DLF Cyber City Developers Ltd AYs: 2011-12 to 2015-16 notified as undertaking of the Central Govt vide notification dated 28.07.2010 running an approved industrial park in terms

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

10. There is no dispute with regard to eligibility of claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the assessee has been DLF Cyber City Developers Ltd AYs: 2011-12 to 2015-16 notified as undertaking of the Central Govt vide notification dated 28.07.2010 running an approved industrial park in terms

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

10. There is no dispute with regard to eligibility of claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the assessee has been DLF Cyber City Developers Ltd AYs: 2011-12 to 2015-16 notified as undertaking of the Central Govt vide notification dated 28.07.2010 running an approved industrial park in terms

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

house properties in question constituted the stock-in- trade or the trading assets of the assessee firm made no difference to the question, was the income from these properties assessable under section 9 or under section 10 of the Income-tax Act. It was assessable only under section 9, and it was correctly assessed under section 9 of the Income

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

13(2)(b) of the Act and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to avail exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act. He, therefore taxed the assessee as AOP and computed the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.1,93,93,48,991/- including therein addition of Rs. 31,20,000/- as income from house property and disallowance

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 2. The assessee is a society which was set up on or about 24th June, 2002. Its office was initially located at c/o Maruti Udyog Limited, 11th Floor, Jeevan Prakash, 25 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110 001. The persons desirous of setting

PAVEL GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 63(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3606/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Pavel Garg, Vs Acit, Dtj-120, 1St Floor, Jasola Tower-B, Circle-63(1), Jasola, New Delhi-110025 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpg2923R Assessee By : Sh. S.B. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2022

10. The assessee submitted that section 23 wherever uses the phrase “is let” includes “deemed to be let” (term used in section 23(4)(b))” and “actually let” [term used in section 23(3)(a)]. The legislature in its wisdom has used these two phrases - “is let”, and “actually let” - in different context and meaning. Had the Parliament intended

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

13% to 19% per annum. But the remedy for that must lie elsewhere, either in the proper control of the public corporations or in the amendment of the Income-tax Act, as the case may be. As the provision of law of Section 40A(5) of the Act now stands, it is not possible to answer the said question

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

13% to 19% per annum. But the remedy for that must lie elsewhere, either in the proper control of the public corporations or in the amendment of the Income-tax Act, as the case may be. As the provision of law of Section 40A(5) of the Act now stands, it is not possible to answer the said question

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

13. The present case of the assessee is for Assessment Year 2011-12 and the ld AR admitted that as such the substituted Rule 5b w.e.f. 01.04.2011 or 7 1952 & 1750/Del/2018 M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. the circular No. 528 are not directly applicable therefore, rescue is taken of section 10(38) of the Act. However, in principle the Rule

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

13. The present case of the assessee is for Assessment Year 2011-12 and the ld AR admitted that as such the substituted Rule 5b w.e.f. 01.04.2011 or 7 1952 & 1750/Del/2018 M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. the circular No. 528 are not directly applicable therefore, rescue is taken of section 10(38) of the Act. However, in principle the Rule

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

13. The present case of the assessee is for Assessment Year 2011- 12 and the ld AR admitted that as such the substituted Rule 5b w.e.f. 01.04.2011 or the circular No. 528 are not directly applicable therefore, rescue is taken of section 10(38) of the Act. However, in principle the Rule 5b and CBDT Circular 528 as interpreted

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

13 and 14 at page No.26 of Paper Book were merely farm lands and no house properties were constructed thereon, would be outside the purview of section 22 of the Act. However, the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition without giving specific finding regarding the properties being vacant farm land and there was no construction of house property

ARYA SMAJ MODEL TOWN,DELHI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -3, NEW DELHI

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

10 or clause (ii) or clause\n(iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB:\n\nTherefore, the reference made by the AO after the completion of assessment is\ncontrary to the provisions of law and, therefore, the said reference and the\nconsequent impugned order passed by the PCIT – Central is totally erroneous\nand without jurisdiction.\nCentral is totally

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

Section 80-1B(10), introduced later, clarifies that nothing contained in that provision applies to an undertaking that executes the housing projects as a works contract awarded by any person including the central or state government. 13. “Development” and construction of a housing project is an undefined phrase of wide import. The Bombay High Court the had occasion

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

Section 80-1B(10), introduced later, clarifies that nothing contained in that provision applies to an undertaking that executes the housing projects as a works contract awarded by any person including the central or state government. 13. “Development” and construction of a housing project is an undefined phrase of wide import. The Bombay High Court the had occasion

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

Section 80-1B(10), introduced later, clarifies that nothing contained in that provision applies to an undertaking that executes the housing projects as a works contract awarded by any person including the central or state government. 13. “Development” and construction of a housing project is an undefined phrase of wide import. The Bombay High Court the had occasion