ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SEEMA SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

section 54 of the Income-tax Act, owing the judgment of Honorable Delhi High Court in the case of Gulshan Malik Vs. in ITA no. 55 of 2014 and CIT vs R.L.Sood [2008] 109 taxman 227/245 ITR 727 Delhi), he disallowed the claim of the assessee. According to Assessing officer, the assessee could have purchased a house property

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

section 54 of the Income-tax Act, owing the judgment of Honorable Delhi High Court in the case of Gulshan Malik Vs. in ITA no. 55 of 2014 and CIT vs R.L.Sood [2008] 109 taxman 227/245 ITR 727 Delhi), he disallowed the claim of the assessee. According to Assessing officer, the assessee could have purchased a house property

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

section 54 of the Income-tax Act, owing the judgment of Honorable Delhi High Court in the case of Gulshan Malik Vs. in ITA no. 55 of 2014 and CIT vs R.L.Sood [2008] 109 taxman 227/245 ITR 727 Delhi), he disallowed the claim of the assessee. According to Assessing officer, the assessee could have purchased a house property

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RANJANA GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

house property income is hereby deleted.” 10. Now the department is in appeal and the assessee has filed Cross Objection. The ld. DR reiterated the observations made by the AO in the assessment order dated 30.12.2010 and further submitted that the assessee filed copy of the rent agreement before the ld. CIT(A) and not before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. AMITA GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

house property income is hereby deleted.” 10. Now the department is in appeal and the assessee has filed Cross Objection. The ld. DR reiterated the observations made by the AO in the assessment order dated 30.12.2010 and further submitted that the assessee filed copy of the rent agreement before the ld. CIT(A) and not before

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

House Property‟ instead of „Income from Other Sources‟ completely disregarding the provisions of section 56 of the Act and Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court judgment. 20.1 That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO be directed to tax the composite rental income of Rs. 17,22,16,198 under the head come from Other Sources‟ after allowing/considering proportionate

SANJEEV SARIN,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 39(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya

109/- on the ground that assessee has not utilized the capital gain amount within the time prescribed u/s 139 (1) of the Act. 2 ITA No.-2692/Del/2018 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the year the assessee has sold his 50% share in house property in New Delhi. The house property was sold

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

property” u/s 22 of the Act had been decided against the assessee by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide judgement dated 31.10.2012 in ITA Nos.18/1999, 56, 57, 105, 107, 109, 114, 177/2001, 88/2002, 111, 321, 498/2003, 227, 336, 529, 690/2004 and 212/2005 in assessee’s own case and other connected matters reported as CIT vs Ansal Housing Finance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING CO. LTD.

The Appeals are disposed of in the above terms without any order on costs

house properties in question constituted the stock-in- trade or the trading assets of the assessee firm made no difference to the question, 2012:DHC:6622-DB ITA 18/99, 56,57,105, 107,109,114,177/01, 88/02 111, 321,498/03,227,336,529,690/04,212/05 Page 10 was the income from these properties assessable under section

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

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

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

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the grounds restored to the file of the Tribunal by the Hon'ble High Court are decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12] & [Assessment Year: 2012-13]

House Property’ instead of ‘Income from Other Sources’ completely disregarding the provisions of section 56 of the Act and Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court judgment. 20.1 That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO be directed to tax the composite rental income of Rs. 17,22,16,198 under the head come from Other Sources’ after allowing/considering proportionate

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property". 10. The assessee preferred appeal against this order before the CIT(A). In this appeal, the assessee took an additional ground predicated on the provisions of section 27(iii) read with section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property". 10. The assessee preferred appeal against this order before the CIT(A). In this appeal, the assessee took an additional ground predicated on the provisions of section 27(iii) read with section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property". 10. The assessee preferred appeal against this order before the CIT(A). In this appeal, the assessee took an additional ground predicated on the provisions of section 27(iii) read with section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property". 10. The assessee preferred appeal against this order before the CIT(A). In this appeal, the assessee took an additional ground predicated on the provisions of section 27(iii) read with section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property". 10. The assessee preferred appeal against this order before the CIT(A). In this appeal, the assessee took an additional ground predicated on the provisions of section 27(iii) read with section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged