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

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-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

property, it should be deemed that sufficient steps had been taken and it would satisfy the requirements of section 54 of the Act. As per the Hon'ble High Court, the basic purpose behind section 54 of the Act is to ensure that the assessee is not taxed on the capital gain, if he replaces his house and spend money

ROBIN SINGH CHAUHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 29(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Robin Singh Chauhan, Vs Acit, 100/1, Gautam Nagar, Circle-29(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaepc9857F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate & Shri Venkatesh Chaurasia, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-10, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Years 2012- 13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Long-Term Capital Gain & Other Sources. He Filed His Return Of Income On 28Th July, 2012 Declaring The Total Income At Rs2,61,98,009/- Which Was Processed U/S 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Shown An Income Of Rs.2,46,33,865/- Under The Head ‘Long- Term Capital Gain.’ The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act For An Amount Of Rs.2,05,71,400/- On Account Of Investment In Two Properties. The Calculation Of The Cost Of Acquisition Of The New Property As Submitted By The Assessee & Reproduced By The Ao Is As Under:-

section 54 and came to the conclusion that the expression “residential house” provides for exemption for acquisition of one house property. He, therefore, confronted the assessee regarding the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. It was submitted by the assessee that the article ‘a’ is synonymous with ‘any’ and the article ‘a’ is not necessarily a singular term

ANSAL HOUSING LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ansal Housing Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Ansal Circle-2(2), Housing & Construction Ltd.), New Delhi 606, 6Th Floor, Indra Prakash, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca0377R (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Ansal Housing & Circle-2(2), Construction Ltd., New Delhi 15, Ugf, Indraprakash Building, 21 Barakhamba, Cp, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca0377R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv. Sh. Jitendra Bhati, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

property” under section 22 of the Act. Both the parties are very much ad idem that the instant issue is no more res integra in the assessee’s case as the hon’ble jurisdiction high court in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd. (2013) 213 Taxman 143(Del) has already decided the same in the department

ACIT CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ansal Housing Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Ansal Circle-2(2), Housing & Construction Ltd.), New Delhi 606, 6Th Floor, Indra Prakash, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca0377R (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Ansal Housing & Circle-2(2), Construction Ltd., New Delhi 15, Ugf, Indraprakash Building, 21 Barakhamba, Cp, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca0377R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv. Sh. Jitendra Bhati, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

property” under section 22 of the Act. Both the parties are very much ad idem that the instant issue is no more res integra in the assessee’s case as the hon’ble jurisdiction high court in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd. (2013) 213 Taxman 143(Del) has already decided the same in the department

SUBHASH CHAND KASERA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 47(1), NEW DELHI

Ground of Appeal 2 and 3 are dismissed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

123 Taxmann. 290 (Delhi) 4. However, relying upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Ram Bhau Mandeo Gajre Vs. Narayan Bapuji Dhgotra [2004] 8 SCC 614, the Ld. AO came to the finding that the purchase of property cannot be held to be valid so as to claim deduction under Section

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

house, the benefit is available if the investment is made within three years from the date of transfer. 2. The Board had occasion to examine as to whether the acquisition of a flat by an allottee under the Self-Financing Scheme of the Delhi Development Authority amounts to purchase or its construction by the Delhi Development Authority on behalf

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

123 I.T.A. No. 4435 & 2503/D/2019, 16/Del/2016, 9227/Del/2019 • Approval dated 21/06/2007 granted to assessee by BOA specifying authorized operations in respect of SEZ Project • Approval dated 01/05/2007 by BOA recognizing M/s. DLF Assets P. ltd. as Co-developer in the SEZ project. • Copy of corrigendum dated 06/11/2007 to approval dated 01/05/2007 • Approval dated 18/06/2007 granted to Co-developer by BOA specifying

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 250(6) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), 31, New Delhi. 2. The assessee is an individual deriving income from house properties and income from other sources. A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 2 Sh. Sunil Kumar Vs. ACIT 132 of the Act in AKN Group of cases

GURBAKSHISH SINGH BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

123 taxmann.com 213(Delhi- Trib.); (iv) Ritz Suppliers (P.) Ltd. vs ITO [2020] 113 taxmann.com 349 (Kolkata - Trib.); (v) CIT vs Greenfield Hotels & Estates (P.) Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 308 (Bombay HC) 20. He accordingly submitted that since the deeming provisions of section 50C for assessing the stamp duty value as sale consideration are only applicable in case of transfer

NINA LUTHRA,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), NOIDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Nina Luthra, F No 20, Sector-37, Vs. Ito, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Ward-1(2), Pan: Actpl6023F Noida (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 50C has been held by three different coordinate benches as retrospective in nature. The coordinate benches in Maria Fernandes Cherly v. ITO (IT )(2021) 187 ITD 738/ 123 Taxmann.com 252 /209 TTJ 850 /198 DTR 137/ 85 ITR 674 (Mum)(Trib), Chadra Prakash Jhunjhunwala Vs. DCIT 113 Taxmann.com 246 and Sandeep Patil Vs. ITO in ITA No. 924/Banglore/Del/2019

CIT vs. TILAK RAJ ANAND

123, Anand Niketan, New Delhi and the company in which he had substantial interest had sold another property, 167 Golf Links, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as “the Golf Links property”. The search operations extended to his premises as well as some co-owners of the Anand Niketan property. 5. The AO, after considering the records held that the value

ANIL DUA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT -10, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Dua Vs. Pcit -10 F-13, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 Pan :Aacpd8370L (Appellant) (Respondent)

House of Lords in England has made it clear that breach of natural justice nullifies the order made in breach. If that is so then the order made in violation of the principles of natural justice was of no value. If that it so then the Page6 application made for the settlement under Section 245-C was still pending before

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

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 P a g e | 20 8 appeals Public Political Party (AY: 2015-16 to2017-18, 2021-22 & 2022-23) income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

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 P a g e | 20 8 appeals Public Political Party (AY: 2015-16 to2017-18, 2021-22 & 2022-23) income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

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 P a g e | 20 8 appeals Public Political Party (AY: 2015-16 to2017-18, 2021-22 & 2022-23) income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

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 P a g e | 20 8 appeals Public Political Party (AY: 2015-16 to2017-18, 2021-22 & 2022-23) income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income