OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

124(3)(b) of the Act, no person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in a case where no return has been filed, after the expiry of time allowed by the notice 142(1) or by the notice issued under the first proviso to section 144, whichever is earlier. vii. Under section 246A

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

124(3)(b) of the Act, no person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in a case where no return has been filed, after the expiry of time allowed by the notice 142(1) or by the notice issued under the first proviso to section 144, whichever is earlier. vii. Under section 246A

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

124(3)(b) of the Act, no person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in a case where no return has been filed, after the expiry of time allowed by the notice 142(1) or by the notice issued under the first proviso to section 144, whichever is earlier. vii. Under section 246A

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

124(3)(b) of the Act, no person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in a case where no return has been filed, after the expiry of time allowed by the notice 142(1) or by the notice issued under the first proviso to section 144, whichever is earlier. vii. Under section 246A

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

Housing and finance Pvt ltd. 4,97,500 10 4975000 Senator developers Pvt. Ltd. 2,54,130 10 2541300 6 7 Sara estates Pvt. Ltd. 4,62,335 10 4623350 Ambience highway developers Pvt. 6,25,000 10 6250000 8 Ltd. 9 Ambience towers Pvt Ltd 2,21,368 12.21 2702903.28 Ambience homes

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. UV REALTORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

3. The brief facts apropos the issue raised in Cross Objection are that, assessee is a company which was registered on 04.11.2004 and since then it has registered office at New Delhi, which is evident from the copy of certificate of incorporation at page 36 of the paper book. The assessee-company derives rental income from the properties which

MAHAVIR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

house property, income from business, STCG and income from other sources. Besides this, he had also claimed Rs.60,96,900/- as exempt income u/s 10(38) on account of long term capital gains from sale of listed shares on which STT was paid. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Though the proceedings of assessment

M/S. LAIRY DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed on legal grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

124 which act as a bar to rake up jurisdictional issues later. Since this decision is rendered without reference to the statutory bars, it cannot be used as a binding precedent as held in State v. Ratan Lai Arora (2004) 4 SCC 590. (ii) Unlike the present appeals, this judgment is not in the context of section 153C. (iii) Judgment

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

3, SRS Kurukshetra”.\nIn view of the Family Settlement, the appellant after April 5, 2019 had only\njoint ownership of House No. C-01, SRS Lotus Garden, Sector - 9 Thanesar.\nKurukshetra with his wife.\nIn support of the ownership of the Residential property in order to eligible for\nexemption u/s 54F of the Act, the appellant also submits the Affidavit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, DELHI vs. M/S BIO-RAD LABORATORIES (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 12 of NCTE Act, 1993 it shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of Teacher Education.  There are approximately 430 applications for various Teacher Education Programmes, other than Diploma level courses, pending at different stages in the RCs.  NEP 2020 has brought

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 6(3) of the IT Act India read with Article 4(3) of the Treaty 26 (II) Judicial Dicta on tests for “control and management of affairs 223-239 situated wholly in India” 27 (III) Case of Dual Residence under the Treaty-Applicability of 235-239 Article 4(3) of Indo Mauritius DTAA Part-B-VI - Rebuttal of objections

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

124 I.T.A. No. 4435 & 2503/D/2019, 16/Del/2016, 9227/Del/2019 considered to have been issued by Board of Approval constituted under SEZ Act. 16.3 We would like to deal with this contention of the revenue raised for the first time before us even though the validity of said clarifications was never disputed by the assessing officer

AGYA RAM vs. COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

house property" and not under the head "Income from business" despite that the assessee had to incur expenditure in connection with such licences granted by the assessee?” Background facts 2. The facts in brief are that the Assessee was carrying on a business under the name and style of M/s. Supreme Auto Works at B-93, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase

AGYA RAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

house property" and not under the head "Income from business" despite that the assessee had to incur expenditure in connection with such licences granted by the assessee?” Background facts 2. The facts in brief are that the Assessee was carrying on a business under the name and style of M/s. Supreme Auto Works at B-93, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase

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

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, 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