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

120,12,680) and 'Amount forfeited on property' (8,60,990) aggregating 1,28,73,670/- derived from 'Non Eligible Business' of the assessee as 'Income from Other Sources' against 'Income from House Property claimed by the assessee and thereby denying deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. 5.1 That the Ld CIT (A), erred in upholding the issue regarding

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

120,12,680) and 'Amount forfeited on property' (8,60,990) aggregating 1,28,73,670/- derived from 'Non Eligible Business' of the assessee as 'Income from Other Sources' against 'Income from House Property claimed by the assessee and thereby denying deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. 5.1 That the Ld CIT (A), erred in upholding the issue regarding

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

120,12,680) and 'Amount forfeited on property' (8,60,990) aggregating 1,28,73,670/- derived from 'Non Eligible Business' of the assessee as 'Income from Other Sources' against 'Income from House Property claimed by the assessee and thereby denying deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. 5.1 That the Ld CIT (A), erred in upholding the issue regarding

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

120,12,680) and 'Amount forfeited on property' (8,60,990) aggregating 1,28,73,670/- derived from 'Non Eligible Business' of the assessee as 'Income from Other Sources' against 'Income from House Property claimed by the assessee and thereby denying deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. 5.1 That the Ld CIT (A), erred in upholding the issue regarding

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

120,12,680) and 'Amount forfeited on property' (8,60,990) aggregating 1,28,73,670/- derived from 'Non Eligible Business' of the assessee as 'Income from Other Sources' against 'Income from House Property claimed by the assessee and thereby denying deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. 5.1 That the Ld CIT (A), erred in upholding the issue regarding

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. GALGOTIA BOOKS & DEPARTMENT STORE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

house no.C-3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (UP); commercial shop no. SS-14, Gulmohar Complex, Section 15, Noida (UP); Factory Land & Building at A-43, Section-8, Noida, UP; Land & Building (Two storeyed) Industrial Shed and Machineries, situated at plot no. 350, Section 3, Phase-II, Industrial Growth Centre, Bawal, Haryana; Agricultural Land (7.35 acre), Khata no. 28, 55/109, Maujapur

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

house no.C-3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (UP); commercial shop no. SS-14, Gulmohar Complex, Section 15, Noida (UP); Factory Land & Building at A-43, Section-8, Noida, UP; Land & Building (Two storeyed) Industrial Shed and Machineries, situated at plot no. 350, Section 3, Phase-II, Industrial Growth Centre, Bawal, Haryana; Agricultural Land (7.35 acre), Khata no. 28, 55/109, Maujapur

PAVEL GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 63(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3606/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Pavel Garg, Vs Acit, Dtj-120, 1St Floor, Jasola Tower-B, Circle-63(1), Jasola, New Delhi-110025 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpg2923R Assessee By : Sh. S.B. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2022

house property remaining vacant. Section 24(1)(ix) was deleted from statute vide Finance Act, 2001 and simultaneously section 23(1)(c) was inserted. Prior to deletion, section 24(1)(ix) read as - “where the property is let and was vacant during a part of the year, that part of the annual value 6 Pavel Garg which is proportionate

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

property applies only in relation to AY 2015-16 and subsequent years whereas the case of the assessee pertains to AY 2012-13. The contention of the assessee is in consonance with the explanation to the said amendment given by the CBDT in Circular No. 1 of 2015 dated 21.01.2015 reported in (2015) 371 ITR (St) 22 the relevant portion

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. AGGARWAL PLASTO CHEM PVT.LTD.

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

Section 5(1) of the PMLA, provisionally attaching the subject property. Inasmuch as the facts are not in dispute, and the issue is purely one of law, detailed allusion to the contents of the Provisional Attachment Order is eschewed. Suffice it, therefore, to reproduce, for 13 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property.— Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts

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)

house is constructed, the capital gain is not to be charged under Section 45 of the said Act. ” 5.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OTHER ARGUMENTS IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DELHI HIGH COURT VIDE AFORESAID DECISION IN CASE OF KU LD EEP SINGH CATEGQRIZED THE ACQUISITION OF AN APARTMENT UNDER A BUILDER BUYERS AGREEMENT WHEREIN J>IE BUILDER GETS CONSTRUCTION DONE

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2002-03

house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, and then secondly, by computing income in terms of section 92 of the Act, by making addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment, if warranted. The additional ground raised under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, is, therefore, dismissed

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 54F of\nthe Act includes only such residential house which is fully and wholly owned\nby one person and not a residential house owned by more than one person.\nThe above decision of Rasiklal N Satra (supra), also referred and relied upon\nother decisions i.e. i) CIT v. T.N Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46/2\nTaxman

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ACI WIRELESS LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

House 38. It is argued that the prosecution has tried to suggest that since the nature of work was confidential, therefore, an inference is drawn from the statement of A3/DW-1 to show that a room was provided to the persons from DPE office for doing the official work which was supposed to be done CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX: DELHI-V vs. RITES LTD.

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

House 38. It is argued that the prosecution has tried to suggest that since the nature of work was confidential, therefore, an inference is drawn from the statement of A3/DW-1 to show that a room was provided to the persons from DPE office for doing the official work which was supposed to be done CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX : DELHI -V vs. RITED LTD.

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

House 38. It is argued that the prosecution has tried to suggest that since the nature of work was confidential, therefore, an inference is drawn from the statement of A3/DW-1 to show that a room was provided to the persons from DPE office for doing the official work which was supposed to be done CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. R.L. KHERA CHARITABLE TRUST

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

House 38. It is argued that the prosecution has tried to suggest that since the nature of work was confidential, therefore, an inference is drawn from the statement of A3/DW-1 to show that a room was provided to the persons from DPE office for doing the official work which was supposed to be done CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NEW DELHI vs. MIRA EXIM LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

House 38. It is argued that the prosecution has tried to suggest that since the nature of work was confidential, therefore, an inference is drawn from the statement of A3/DW-1 to show that a room was provided to the persons from DPE office for doing the official work which was supposed to be done CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page

CIT VI vs. VERIZON INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

House 38. It is argued that the prosecution has tried to suggest that since the nature of work was confidential, therefore, an inference is drawn from the statement of A3/DW-1 to show that a room was provided to the persons from DPE office for doing the official work which was supposed to be done CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page