COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

houses are not really the objects, but were clauses • stipulating the powers of the trustees. Having thus made a distinction between the objects and powers, the CIT (Appeals) proceeded to examine Section 11(4A) vis-à- vis Section 11(4) of the Act. He held that the amended provisions of Section 11(4A) would apply from the assessment year

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

houses are not really the objects, but were clauses • stipulating the powers of the trustees. Having thus made a distinction between the objects and powers, the CIT (Appeals) proceeded to examine Section 11(4A) vis-à- vis Section 11(4) of the Act. He held that the amended provisions of Section 11(4A) would apply from the assessment year

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

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". In so far as the same is liable

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

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". In so far as the same is liable

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

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". In so far as the same is liable

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

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". In so far as the same is liable

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

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". In so far as the same is liable

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

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". In so far as the same is liable

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

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

housing the college, hostel and to\nprovide other facilities to the students who are studying in the College.\nThe College is recognized by the Medical Council of India, State of\nKarnataka and all other statutory authorities. Therefore, it cannot be\nsaid that the Trust is not genuine. Admittedly, the students are being\nadmitted every year. Students are studying

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

property held under trust – (i) Created on or after the 1st day of April, 1952, for a charitable purposes which tends to promote international welfare in which India is interested, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes outside India, and (ii) For charitable or religious purposes, created before the 1st day of April

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOFTWARE AND SERVICE COMPANIES (NASSCOM)

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

property held under trust – (i) Created on or after the 1st day of April, 1952, for a charitable purposes which tends to promote international welfare in which India is interested, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes outside India, and (ii) For charitable or religious purposes, created before the 1st day of April

JAN ABHIVYAKTI SAMAJIK VIKAS SANSTHA,RAIPUR vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2024-25] Jan Abhivyankti Samajik Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vikas Sanstha, Lig-1361, (Central)-2, Room No.341, E-2, Sector-8, Housing Board Vs 2Nd Floor, Ara Centre, Colony, Saddu Mova, Raipur- Jhandewalan Extension, 492001 (C.G.) New Delhi-110055 Pan:Aabaj7197B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

Housing Board Vs 2nd Floor, ARA Centre, Colony, Saddu Mova, Raipur- Jhandewalan Extension, 492001 (C.G.) New Delhi-110055 PAN:AABAJ7197B Appellant Respondent Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. and Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue by Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 18.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.01.2026 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM, The captioned appeal has been preferred

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

11. Ld. AR, without prejudice submitted that lease rental is taxable under section 56 of the Act. He submitted that as per the provisions of clause (iti) of sub section (2) of section 56 of the Act, in case an assessee lets on hire plant and machinery or furniture alongwith building and the letting of such building is inseparable from

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SEH REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

housing plots and 31% of 1500.40 sq. Yds. of residential plots exclusively to the appellant. It was agreed that the “seller” (the appellant) will grant, sell, transfer and convey these plots to the “purchaser” (SEH Realtors P Ltd.) not later that 11.08.2006. The Seller explicitly agreed that any reduction of the agreed area will constitute breach of contract. However

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SEH REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

housing plots and 31% of 1500.40 sq. Yds. of residential plots exclusively to the appellant. It was agreed that the “seller” (the appellant) will grant, sell, transfer and convey these plots to the “purchaser” (SEH Realtors P Ltd.) not later that 11.08.2006. The Seller explicitly agreed that any reduction of the agreed area will constitute breach of contract. However

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SEH REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

housing plots and 31% of 1500.40 sq. Yds. of residential plots exclusively to the appellant. It was agreed that the “seller” (the appellant) will grant, sell, transfer and convey these plots to the “purchaser” (SEH Realtors P Ltd.) not later that 11.08.2006. The Seller explicitly agreed that any reduction of the agreed area will constitute breach of contract. However

VATIKA LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

housing plots and 31% of 1500.40 sq. Yds. of residential plots exclusively to the appellant. It was agreed that the “seller” (the appellant) will grant, sell, transfer and convey these plots to the “purchaser” (SEH Realtors P Ltd.) not later that 11.08.2006. The Seller explicitly agreed that any reduction of the agreed area will constitute breach of contract. However

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SEH REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

housing plots and 31% of 1500.40 sq. Yds. of residential plots exclusively to the appellant. It was agreed that the “seller” (the appellant) will grant, sell, transfer and convey these plots to the “purchaser” (SEH Realtors P Ltd.) not later that 11.08.2006. The Seller explicitly agreed that any reduction of the agreed area will constitute breach of contract. However