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.,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

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

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

10,87,64,735/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs.5,00,09,463/- for AY 2012-13received from Emaar MGF. 3. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the rental income is actually income from house property and not business income or income from other sources. The Assessing Officer granted standard deduction of 30% as per Section

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

houses has been subjected to tax deduction at source under section 194J and therefore the nature of these receipts are commercial in nature. Further it was also point of concern for CIT exemption that the turnover from services reported to the service tax authorities amounted to " 38665028 and assessee has also paid service tax on the fees etc received from

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

house) was also maintained by the trust, to take care of stay of visitors /travelers who come to visit the Ashram for their great respect for Gandhiji and his philosophy. However nominal rates were charged from such visitors/travelers for providing accommodation facilities. The assesse was, however, for the assessment year 2009-10, denied renewal of registration under section

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

15. It was highlighted by counsel that the interpretation pressed upon by the revenue cannot be accepted, as it would amount to rendering Section 10 (10CC) meaningless. It was argued that each perquisite, paid for by the employer (even if not paid by the employee) would become a monetary perquisite. Thus, residential house belonging to the employer and provided

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

15. It was highlighted by counsel that the interpretation pressed upon by the revenue cannot be accepted, as it would amount to rendering Section 10 (10CC) meaningless. It was argued that each perquisite, paid for by the employer (even if not paid by the employee) would become a monetary perquisite. Thus, residential house belonging to the employer and provided

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

15. It was highlighted by counsel that the interpretation pressed upon by the revenue cannot be accepted, as it would amount to rendering Section 10 (10CC) meaningless. It was argued that each perquisite, paid for by the employer (even if not paid by the employee) would become a monetary perquisite. Thus, residential house belonging to the employer and provided

M/S. MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result we dismiss the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year:

section was omitted by The Finance Act 2002 w.e.f. 1st April 2003 and therefore it applied for registration u/s 12AA on 05.05.2010 contending that it is falling under the phraseology of “objects of other general public utility” falling into the definition of charitable purposes u/s 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and thereby, eligible to claim exemption

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

15)(iv)(h) of the Act is applicable and Section 10(38) of the Act is not applicable, made the distinction and made the addition avoiding Section 10 of the Act. 16. In this context here it can be observed that ‘Profits and gains of business’ is one of the classified heads of the income as per Section

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

15)(iv)(h) of the Act is applicable and Section 10(38) of the Act is not applicable, made the distinction and made the addition avoiding Section 10 of the Act. 16. In this context here it can be observed that ‘Profits and gains of business’ is one of the classified heads of the income as per Section

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

15)(iv)(h) of the Act is applicable and Section 10(38) of the Act is not applicable, made the distinction and made the addition avoiding Section 10 of the Act. 16. In this context here it can be observed that „Profits and gains of business‟ is one of the classified heads of the income as per Section

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. GALGOTIA BOOKS & DEPARTMENT STORE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

house no.C-3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (UP); commercial shop no. SS-14, Gulmohar Complex, Section 15, Noida (UP); Factory Land & Building at A-43, Section-8, Noida, UP; Land & Building (Two storeyed) Industrial Shed and Machineries, situated at plot no. 350, Section 3, Phase-II, Industrial Growth Centre, Bawal, Haryana; Agricultural Land (7.35 acre), Khata no. 28, 55/109, Maujapur

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. SALDI CHITS PVT. LTD.,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

house no.C-3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (UP); commercial shop no. SS-14, Gulmohar Complex, Section 15, Noida (UP); Factory Land & Building at A-43, Section-8, Noida, UP; Land & Building (Two storeyed) Industrial Shed and Machineries, situated at plot no. 350, Section 3, Phase-II, Industrial Growth Centre, Bawal, Haryana; Agricultural Land (7.35 acre), Khata no. 28, 55/109, Maujapur

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

15,750/- against the annual value of Rs. 48,000/- accepted by the AO for the said adjoining house property and other house properties in close vicinity. 18. Thus, it was argued that the deemed annual value @ 5% of value of investment in house property was calculated by ld. CIT(A) on ad-hoc basis without bringing on record