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

property in question) and the enforcement authority (the State). Since the second of the above species of "proceeds of crime" uses the expression "such property", the qualifying word being "such", it is vivid that the "property" referred to here is equivalent to the one indicated by the first kind. The only difference is that it is not the same property

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

section 54 of the I.T. Act only benefit of one residential house property of Rs. 79,71,600/- purchased by the assessee during the year can be allowed to the assessee. 3. That the action of the CIT(A) is vitiated in law as no show cause notice required to be given

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) DELHI-2, JHANDEWALAN NEW DELHI, DELHI

property. The said tax position was also duly accepted by\nthe department in the preceding and succeeding year. The assessee\nalready claimed standard deduction under Section 24(a) of the Act to the\ntune of Rs.57,81,40,137/- upon making suo motu disallowance of other\nexpenses amounting to Rs.13,68,61,227/- in regard to the house\nproperty income

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

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

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

ITO,WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. VINOD GUGNANI, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds of Appeal of the Revenue fails, consequently the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said amount

M/S. MATA VAISHNO ESTATES,KARNAL vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in all the years is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

section 44 was allowable. Therefore, interest payable on the partner’s capital contribution and bank charges cannot be allowed. Accordingly, he made following disallowance in the various years:- Assessment Disallowance of Disallowance of bank year interest charges

DR. MANJU DANG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

section 23 of the Act. Accordingly, as per submissions of the assessee dated 12.03.2015, in which the assessee had submitted that market rent of the property is Rs.100/- sq. ft. . Total covered area of the property was 5700 sq. ft.. Therefore, the total rent of the property worked out to Rs.5,70,0000/- per month, 50% of the assessee

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Housing Development Corpn. Vs. ACIT: [2019] 179 ITD 154 (Mum Trib.) (i) ACIT vs Jackie Shroff: [2018] 172 ITD 425 (Mumbai) 12 (j) Satyam Food Specialties (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2015] 68 SOT 449 (Jaipur - Trib.) (k) Ishvakoo Grand Plaza v. DCIT: ITA No. 4537/Del/2017 (Del. Trib) (l) Ms. Padma Rao vs. CIT: [2024] 159 taxmann.com 30 (Del Trib

ANJU AHUJA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CIRCLE 49(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

house. It was contended that the property was built 45 years ago and new kitchen has neither been constructed nor cannot be constructed without remodification and reconstruction of whole I.T.A. No.273/Del/2023 6 unit. 8.1 The ld. counsel essentially contended that although two agreements have been entered to get hold of the property as a whole, the assessee has essentially purchased

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. MODI LUFT LTD

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

House Rates Control Act, 1947 and held that when two persons intending to be partners take premises on lease for business of the partnership, there is no unity of title and the law clearly conceives their interest in severalty in proportion defined by them and relinquishment of interest by one in favour of the other is prohibited by the Rent

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

111 ITR 347 (Mad), it is held that Keeping in view the provisions of section 163(2) regarding opportunity of being heard to be given to the agent as also those of section 246(1 )(d) or 246(2A) or 246(2B) or section 246A(1)(d) regarding filing of an appeal against an order made u/s 163 treating

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

SMT. KIRAN KAMRA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Kiran Kamra, Vs. Ito, 2286, Hudson Line, Ward-36(1), G.T.B. Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Aaqpk8729C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate & Shri V. Raj Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 Order

house property at Plot No.24, Block-UP, Pitampura, Delhi. Since the deal could not materialize, after issue of two legal notices the assessee got back Rs.55 lakhs from the above two sellers on 21st February, 2012 and, thereafter, the amount was invested in REC Bonds on 21st March, 2012. He submitted that the exemption granted u/s 54 and 54EC