ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

112 (SC), where the same were referred to as 'capitalization shares'. (v) In other words, there is no receipt of any property by the shareholder, and what stands received by him is the split shares out of his own holding. It would be akin to somebody exchanging a one thousand rupee note for two five hundred or ten hundred rupee

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

112 (SC), where the same were referred to as 'capitalization shares'. (v) In other words, there is no receipt of any property by the shareholder, and what stands received by him is the split shares out of his own holding. It would be akin to somebody exchanging a one thousand rupee note for two five hundred or ten hundred rupee

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

house property (refer pg 328-329 of paper book); (iii) Computation of Total Income for AY 2021-22 and Form 26AS (refer pg 331-334 of paper book); (iv) Possession Letter dated 31.07.2021 along with declaration (refer pg 206-207 of paper book) and (v) Receipt cum Confirmation letter from Mrs. Shahista Gehlot (refer pg 330 of paper book

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE- 15(1), NEW DELHI vs. LEON REALTORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), and the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07/07/2017 partly allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee by deleting the addition of Rs.2,67,51,318/-.

112,64,39,775/- and the assessee has claimed interest expenses of Rs. 13,93,95,296/- which comes to 12.37%. the original loan taken for the property, was at the rate of 10% which was repaid by taking loan at a higher rate. It is not out of place to mention here that in the assessment

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

112 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding a disallowance of Rs 1,04,90,324/- out of the total depreciation allowance claimed by the appellant under section 32 of the Act. 3.1 That on facts and in law the AO / CIT(A) erred in making upholding the above

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

property dealings. Question No.12 and the answer thereto are relevant and are reproduced as under: - 2012:DHC:5366-DB ITA Nos.713/2008, 948/2008, 892/2008, 707/2008 & 706/2008 Page 32 of 48 “Q-12: Please let us know about the pruchses (sic) of K.G.Farm & Jyoti farm? Ans: These five transaction were brokered by us for Rajender Gupta with drafts ********** bearings. In the first

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

112 of the Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 52,88,173/- out of total depreciation allowance of Rs. 1,82,35,078/- claimed by the appellant under section 32 of the Act. 3.1 That on facts and in law the AO/ CIT(A) erred in making/ upholding

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

112 of the Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 52,88,173/- out of total depreciation allowance of Rs. 1,82,35,078/- claimed by the appellant under section 32 of the Act. 3.1 That on facts and in law the AO/ CIT(A) erred in making/ upholding

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

house property’ and income claimed as ‘income from other sources’ (Rs.16,48,46,416/- Rs.4,21,60,112_ as computed below is being made to the computation of income.” 6 10. On this issue, ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that in assessee’s case for earlier years, identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee. However

ASHOK KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

house within one year before or two years after the date on which transfer of capital asset took place. The 6 ITA.No.1160/Del./2020 Shri Ashok Kumar, Ghaziabad. details of sale and purchase of property is tabulated in the assessment order as under : 3.3. The A.O, therefore, found that assessee is not entitled to claim exemption under section

PHOOL SINGH,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-3(2), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarphool Singh Vs. Ito Plot No.2394 (Basement), Ward – 3(2) Sector – 46, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002 Pan : Eurps 4895 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

property. PB 3 is the copy of reply filed on 07.07.2017 by assessee before Ld. AO submitting that he has constructed a residential house in -5- ITA No.1986/Del/2019 Phool Singh vs. ITO A.Y. 2013-14 village on his ancestral land for a sum of Rs.1,25,20,000/- and the house was completed within the period of three years from

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 03, NEW DELHI vs. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

112-115 I.T.As. No.5940 & 5941/DEL/2017 and CO No.5 & 6/DEL/2021 26 5 Deletion of Decided in Decided by Para number Dismissed disallowance favour of paragraph 13 of the order on account of the assesse number 15 in non-allocation by favour of the of overhead to paragraph assesse. group number companies 125-130 7 Deletion Decided in Para number Dismissed disallowance

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, , LTU, NEW DELHI

house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources",\nor in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of\nany business of insurance, including any such business carried on\nby a mutual insurance company or by a co-operative society, shall\nbe computed in accordance with the rules contained in the First\nSchedule.\"\n11.1 First

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

property, from which income was generated was the trust property; the sale deed in favour of the assessee showed that he purchased the property as a trustee and there was a subsequent deed creating a trust which recorded a corpus of Rs. 2 lakhs left in the hands of the assessee. In this case it was held that

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

112 of the Income Tax Act. These are alternative claims raised by the assessee. In our considered opinion, these grounds now become in fructuous in view of our adjudication in Ground Nos. 1 and 1.1 above which has been decided in favour of the assessee. Grounds 2, 2.1 and 2.2 are accordingly dismissed. 7.0 Ground Nos. 3 and 3.1 relate