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

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

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

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

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’).

124 (Chandigarh - Trib.), Kannan Chandrasekar v. ITO [2017] 82 taxmann.com 284/165 ITD 223 (Chennai - Trib.). xii) PCIT vs Dilip Ranjrekar (101 Taxmann.com 114) (Karnatka HC) “Where AO rejected assessee's claim for deduction under sec. 54 on ground that construction of new property was not completed within a period of three years as prescribed in section 54, in view

JAN ABHIVYAKTI SAMAJIK VIKAS SANSTHA,RAIPUR vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2024-25] Jan Abhivyankti Samajik Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vikas Sanstha, Lig-1361, (Central)-2, Room No.341, E-2, Sector-8, Housing Board Vs 2Nd Floor, Ara Centre, Colony, Saddu Mova, Raipur- Jhandewalan Extension, 492001 (C.G.) New Delhi-110055 Pan:Aabaj7197B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

Housing Board Vs 2nd Floor, ARA Centre, Colony, Saddu Mova, Raipur- Jhandewalan Extension, 492001 (C.G.) New Delhi-110055 PAN:AABAJ7197B Appellant Respondent Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. and Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue by Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 18.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.01.2026 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM, The captioned appeal has been preferred

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page