SELECT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

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

section 22 are satisfied. Their Lordships further held that merely there is an entry in the object clause of the business showing a particular object, would not be the determinative factor to arrive at a conclusion that the income is to be treated as income from business or otherwise. It would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each

MRS. SAMKIKSHA MAHAJAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm Ita No. 3117/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Mrs. Samiksha Mahajan, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2, Avenue Cassia, Westend Tax, Central Circle-22, Greens, Rajokari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akdpm4000H Ita No. 3118/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Mrs. Anita Rani, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2, Avenue Cassia, Westend Tax, Central Circle-22, Greens, Rajokari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepr2569P Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sambhav Rastogi Revenue By : Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2016

section, it is also clear that the property either be acquired or constructed with the borrowed capital. It is nowhere mentioned that the property must be acquired as well as constructed with the borrowed capital. The use of the word “or” in between acquired and constructed makes it clear that the property can either be acquired or constructed with

MRS. ANITA RANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm Ita No. 3117/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Mrs. Samiksha Mahajan, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2, Avenue Cassia, Westend Tax, Central Circle-22, Greens, Rajokari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akdpm4000H Ita No. 3118/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Mrs. Anita Rani, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2, Avenue Cassia, Westend Tax, Central Circle-22, Greens, Rajokari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepr2569P Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sambhav Rastogi Revenue By : Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2016

section, it is also clear that the property either be acquired or constructed with the borrowed capital. It is nowhere mentioned that the property must be acquired as well as constructed with the borrowed capital. The use of the word “or” in between acquired and constructed makes it clear that the property can either be acquired or constructed with

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

123 ITR 200 (Del). Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Fast Booking (I) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 378 ITR 693 (Del). We, therefore, permit the respondent to raise the above additional ground, which is hereby admitted for decision under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. Accordingly, the ground is espoused

M/S AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

123 ITR 681, 687-88 (Del). Also see Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 624 (SC); CIT v. Smt. Nandiniben Narottamdas, (1983) 140 ITR 16, 26 (Guj)]. Also see, “Diversion or application of income", u/s. 4, ante. The object underlying the provisions of section 60 is to meet with the device which was being adopted by the assessees

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

123 ITR 681, 687-88 (Del). Also see Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 624 (SC); CIT v. Smt. Nandiniben Narottamdas, (1983) 140 ITR 16, 26 (Guj)]. Also see, “Diversion or application of income", u/s. 4, ante. The object underlying the provisions of section 60 is to meet with the device which was being adopted by the assessees

M/S AMBIENCE HOTELS & RESORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

123 ITR 681, 687-88 (Del). Also see Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 624 (SC); CIT v. Smt. Nandiniben Narottamdas, (1983) 140 ITR 16, 26 (Guj)]. Also see, “Diversion or application of income", u/s. 4, ante. The object underlying the provisions of section 60 is to meet with the device which was being adopted by the assessees

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

123 ITR 681, 687-88 (Del). Also see Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 624 (SC); CIT v. Smt. Nandiniben Narottamdas, (1983) 140 ITR 16, 26 (Guj)]. Also see, “Diversion or application of income", u/s. 4, ante. The object underlying the provisions of section 60 is to meet with the device which was being adopted by the assessees

ANURAG TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita No. 2626/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anurag Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O R B Tyagi, Flat No. 303, Ward-1(1), Super Tech, Avant Grade Plot Ghaziabad No. 1, Sector-5, Vaishali, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpt6848P Assessee By : Sh. Anup Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Prasar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.01.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

123 (Delhi Tribunal) That in ACIT v. Dr. P.S. Pasricha (2008) 20 SOT 468 (Mumbai Tribunal), the assessee transferred a residential property for Rs. 1.40 crore. The sale consideration was utilized for acquiring a commercial property though, the assessee acquired two adjacent residential flats in one building within the stipulated time and claimed exemption u/s 54. The A.O. held that

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

house property for the year under consideration, we dismiss the same. iii). iii). iii). iii). CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 123 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

house property for the year under consideration, we dismiss the same. iii). iii). iii). iii). CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 123 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat

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

Section 54F of the Act. 27. Vide the impugned order, the Ld. AO denied the exemption solely on the premise of non-registration of sale deed of such property. While doing so, the Ld. AO completely disregarded the cogent documentary evidences in support of genuine purchase of property furnished: (i) Agreement to Sell with Ms. ShahistaGehlot (refer

CIT vs. BECTON DICKINSON INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

123 Khursheed Market and the house at Punjabi Bagh as the subject matter of dispute and acknowledges that Shop No.17 in the name of Manmohan and Shop No.123 in the name of RFA(OS) 41/2012 Page 24 of 35 Kedar Nath Seth are properties of the joint family requiring to be partitioned. 6. An arbitral award dated January

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

properties claimed as being vacant farm lands needs verification by the AO for ascertaining the correctness of the claim that no house/building was constructed on such lands. Thus the issue is hereby, restored to AO. If it is found true that during the relevant time, no house property/commercial space were constructed thereon. No addition would be called for. Thus, Ground

RAJNI KUMAR WIFE OF SHRI BRIG. NARENDER KUMAR H.NO.394, SECTOR-21, GURGAONN,GURGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrajni Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), W/O Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ayypk1781A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & The Assessment Order Was Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

123 , New Sunny Enclave , Kharar Mohali (PB) was purchased on 09.05.2022 for a sum of Rs.2,10,00,000 thus reinvesting the entire sale proceeds to buy a new residential property and the relevant documents in this regard are placed in the paper book at pages- 46-69. 15. In view of his submissions as above, in conclusion, he submitted

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

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