SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

108 Taxman 227(Delhi). Rejecting the assessee’s explanation / submission, the Ld. AO held that an amount of Rs. 11,49,116/- (Rs. 33,21,868/- - 21,72,752/-) not deposited in capital gain account before the due date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act i.e. 31.07.2012 is ineligible for exemption under section

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

property", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under Section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be income chargeable under

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. AJAY GOEL, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

property and thus cannot be denied\nexemption u/s 54 of the Act as claimed by him. Even otherwise as per the\ndecision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Resiklel N Satra (supra),\nit has been categorically held that the word 'own' appearing in section 54F of\nthe Act includes only such residential house which is fully

SHRI M M CREATIONS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai & M. M. Creations Acit T-481A, Baljeet Nagar Circle-24(1), Behind Patel Nagar Police Station New Delhi Vs. New Delhi. Pan : Aaefm9802A (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property, as it does not involve any commercial activity. In the paper book Ld. AR placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Kayram Hotels Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2015) 373 ITR 494 and decision Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd., reported

M/S. TERA ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we allow ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishitera Estates Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, S-395, Greater Kailash, Parti-Ii, Range-16, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabct5729R (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 234B of the Act, which is not leviable on the facts of the appellant company.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of owners, colonizers, developers, promoters etc. The assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2006- 07 on 30.11.2006 of Rs. 3596255/-. The assessment

MRS. NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

house property from aforesaid properties was actually taxed in the contracting States and without examining the relevant legal provisions that gave the option to the assessee to choose the country of taxation. He further submitted that assessing officer was furnished with the copies of the income tax returns filed by the assessee in these contracting States (placed at page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - XV vs. BHARTI MISHRA

property”, other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under Section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be income chargeable under

AJAY KUMAR SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

SECTION 288A 157030 COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY 157528 TAX ON Rs.110000 Nil TAX ON RS.4000(150000-110000) @ 10% 4000 TAX ON RS.7030(157300150000) @20% 1406 TAX ON Rs.157030 5406 5406 ADD EDUCATION CESS @ 2% 108

PRAMOD KUMAR SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

SECTION 288A 157030 COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY 157528 TAX ON Rs.110000 Nil TAX ON RS.4000(150000-110000) @ 10% 4000 TAX ON RS.7030(157300150000) @20% 1406 TAX ON Rs.157030 5406 5406 ADD EDUCATION CESS @ 2% 108

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

house property, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83. Mr Singh is right

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

house property, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83. Mr Singh is right

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

house property, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83. Mr Singh is right

M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishistylish Construction Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, 1027, Top Floor, Ward No. 8, Circle-9(1), Vs. Mehra Chowk, Mehrauli New Delhi Pan: Aaics4664H (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Property', Capital Gains ' and 'Income from Other Sources '. b) A company whose principal business is of banking or granting of loans/advances The above explanation does not apply to the assessee since its main business consists of "Capital Gains. But the assessee on his own w.r.t. his reply to 14A had said that his main business is supply

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House Property with respect to the property at New Delhi and Dehradun. The learned authorised representative also did not press the addition of RS. 1,53,586/– made by the learned assessing officer and sustained by the learned CIT – A with respect to the Hauz Khas property. 18. Coming to the first ground of appeal challenging the action

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House Property with respect to the property at New Delhi and Dehradun. The learned authorised representative also did not press the addition of RS. 1,53,586/– made by the learned assessing officer and sustained by the learned CIT – A with respect to the Hauz Khas property. 18. Coming to the first ground of appeal challenging the action

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House Property with respect to the property at New Delhi and Dehradun. The learned authorised representative also did not press the addition of RS. 1,53,586/– made by the learned assessing officer and sustained by the learned CIT – A with respect to the Hauz Khas property. 18. Coming to the first ground of appeal challenging the action

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House Property with respect to the property at New Delhi and Dehradun. The learned authorised representative also did not press the addition of RS. 1,53,586/– made by the learned assessing officer and sustained by the learned CIT – A with respect to the Hauz Khas property. 18. Coming to the first ground of appeal challenging the action

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House Property with respect to the property at New Delhi and Dehradun. The learned authorised representative also did not press the addition of RS. 1,53,586/– made by the learned assessing officer and sustained by the learned CIT – A with respect to the Hauz Khas property. 18. Coming to the first ground of appeal challenging the action