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.,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(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

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

section 24(a) of the Act. Ground No. 5: Without prejudice to the above grounds, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance amounting to Rs. 2,81,24,572 on account of depreciation on assets other than building by treating entire income from leasing as income from house property without dividing the same proportionately between income from house

M/S. SJP INFRACON LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3102/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Sjp Infracon Ltd., Vs Dcit, A-133, Sector-63, Tds, Noida-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaocs6480K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2022

20) of the Income Tax Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003. For the reasons given by our judgment of the date in the above appeals, this submission has to be rejected. 12. Now coming to the appeals filed by the revenue, insofar as the question relating to exemption under Section 194A(3) (iii)(f) by virtue

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

20. We find that the AO has computed 10% of the value of investments in house property whereas the ld. CIT(A) reduced 10 Pavel Garg the amount to 5% of the value of investments. Both decisions are on ad-hoc basis. The rent realized by the assessee in the subsequent years is on record with all the evidences. Hence

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

20. The real debate here is whether the tax paid – on behalf of the employee, by the employer is a perquisite and if it is not, whether it is to be excluded from the definition of income, by virtue of Section 10 (10CC). The latter provision operates, and applies in the following terms: (a) to an individual deriving income

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

20. The real debate here is whether the tax paid – on behalf of the employee, by the employer is a perquisite and if it is not, whether it is to be excluded from the definition of income, by virtue of Section 10 (10CC). The latter provision operates, and applies in the following terms: (a) to an individual deriving income

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

house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", do not apply in the case of computation of income from insurance business. The effect of the non-obstante clause so far as the earlier part of section 44 is concerned, therefore, is that the provisions of section 44 will prevail notwithstanding the fact that there are contrary provisions

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

house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", do not apply in the case of computation of income from insurance business. The effect of the non-obstante clause so far as the earlier part of section 44 is concerned, therefore, is that the provisions of section 44 will prevail notwithstanding the fact that there are contrary provisions

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

house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", do not apply in the case of computation of income from insurance business. The effect of the non-obstante clause so far as the earlier part of section 44 is concerned, therefore, is that the provisions of section 44 will prevail notwithstanding the fact that there are contrary provisions

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

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 by the assessee. Therefore, the issue of taxability of properties claimed as being vacant farm lands needs verification by the AO for ascertaining the correctness

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

Properties [2013] 353 ITR 36 (Bom) to decide the permissibility of deduction in a case where the assessee had to develop and construct a block of residential flats. The Court held that: “…the expression "housing project" in common parlance would mean constructing a building or group of buildings consisting of several residential units. In fact, the Explanation in section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

Properties [2013] 353 ITR 36 (Bom) to decide the permissibility of deduction in a case where the assessee had to develop and construct a block of residential flats. The Court held that: “…the expression "housing project" in common parlance would mean constructing a building or group of buildings consisting of several residential units. In fact, the Explanation in section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

Properties [2013] 353 ITR 36 (Bom) to decide the permissibility of deduction in a case where the assessee had to develop and construct a block of residential flats. The Court held that: “…the expression "housing project" in common parlance would mean constructing a building or group of buildings consisting of several residential units. In fact, the Explanation in 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

10 ITA Nos.8524 to 8526/Del./2019 11. We have heard the rival contentions, gone through the impugned orders and the material available on record. We find that only dispute in appeal is, whether the assessment of lease income from commercial space in SEZ, should be taxed under the head “Income from house property” or as “business income

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

10 ITA Nos.8524 to 8526/Del./2019 11. We have heard the rival contentions, gone through the impugned orders and the material available on record. We find that only dispute in appeal is, whether the assessment of lease income from commercial space in SEZ, should be taxed under the head “Income from house property” or as “business income