DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OMAXE BUILDHOME (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu Assessment Year : 2008-09 Deputy Cit, Vs. M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Central Circle-4, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, New Delhi. Kalkaji, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Vs. Deputy Cit, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, Central Circle-4, Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Properties in ITA Nos. 3633/2009 and 4361/2010, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed as under: “…..Moreover plain reading of Section 80IB(10) does not even remotely suggest that the plot of land having minimum area of one acre must be vacant. The said section allows deduction to a housing project (subject to fulfilling all other conditions ) constructed

RAM MOHAN RAI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Mohan Rai, Vs. Acit, A-8/25, Vansant Vihar, Circle-33(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaapr0728C (Appellant) (Respondent)

property by the seller to the petitioner is not materially relevant for grant of exemption under Section 54F of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the ITAT in the case of Narasimha Raju Rudra Raju v. Asstt. CIT[2013] 35 taxmann.com 90/143 ITD 586 (Hyd. - Trib.). The contention of the revenue was that petitioner has invested

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI, DELHI

house property'.\n13.\nIn this regard, the details of the sale deed, purchase cost and\nstamp duty in respect of each of the properties for a land measuring\nabout 22.7 acre as furnished by the assessee and not been disputed by\nthe Ld. DR is reproduced hereinbelow:\nTotal Cost as per Sale Deed\nSale Deed No.\nCost\nAmount

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) DELHI-2, JHANDEWALAN NEW DELHI, DELHI

house property'.\n13. In this regard, the details of the sale deed, purchase cost and\nstamp duty in respect of each of the properties for a land measuring\nabout 22.7 acre as furnished by the assessee and not been disputed by\nthe Ld. DR is reproduced hereinbelow:\n\n| Total Cost as per Sale Deed\n| Amount

DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), NEW DELHI vs. KANWAL MOHAN SINGH SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

property’, whereas, the cost of the same asset is taken into consideration when it is sold and capital gains are computed under section 48. We do not have even a slightest doubt that the interest in question is indeed an expenditure in acquiring the asset. Since both provisions are altogether different, the assessee in the instant case is certainly entitled

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WINGFLOW CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri N.K. Choudhry

section 24. Moreover, he observed that the assessee has not carried out any business activity during the year under consideration. The AO disallowed the expenses of Rs.48,82,4821- as claimed by the assessee company against rental income and rental income of Rs.37,08,6401- is taxed under the head ‘Income from House Property’. Accordingly, the AO assessed the income

WINGFLOW CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3157/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Wingflow Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, G-2/43A, Middle Circle, Ward-27(3), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacw0016D Assessee By : Sh. R. K. Mehra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2020

section 234B of the Income tax Act, 1961.” 3. Brief history of the case is that, the assessee received income from rent and declared the same under the head profit & gains of business and profession income upto assessment year 1996-97. The assessee changed the head of income in assessment year 1997-98 and claimed rental income as house property

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ATRIA PARTNER, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year : 2010-11 A.C.I.T., Circle 31(1) Vs. M/S. Atria Partners, New Delhi. 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. [Pan : Aahfa 1305 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.A. Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2016 Order Per L.P. Sahu: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.11.2013 Passed By The Learned Cit(A)-Xxvi, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On The Following Grounds :

section 24(a) of the IT Act. The AO required the assessee to furnish the reasons for showing rental income under the head “income from house property” instead of “business income”. In response, the assessee filed written submissions stating that the assessee firm received rental income from property owned by it and hence, the rental income was correctly shown

CORONET HOTEL SERVICES & SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 6(3), NEW DELHI

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

125/- Less: 30% for Repairs Rs. 35,35,538/- Income from House Property Rs. 82,49,588/- 5. Since the assessee during the assessment proceedings had filed the contention that the receipts are business receipts and no tax audit has been conducted by the assessee company. Accordingly penalty proceedings under section

M/S. MISSION VIEJO AGRO PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4236/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Mission Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 48, Friends Colony, Central Circle-23, New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1160C Assessee By : Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Impugned Assessment Order Passed Under Sections 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Without Jurisdiction, Illegal & Bad In Law Since The Prerequisite Conditions For Initiating Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Not Fulfilled In The Present Case. 2. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Alleged Fair Rental Value At Rs.11,77,528/- & Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.11,77,528/- Under The Head Income From House Property. 3. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.7,00,000/- Received From M/S 2 Mission Viejo Estate Pvt. Ltd. Golden Techno Build Pvt. Ltd. As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. 4. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Aforesaid Addition Of Rs.7 Lacs Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Discharged Its Onus In Terms Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Ground No. 1 Is Not Pressed, Therefore, The Same Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

section 23 of the Act, the sum for which the property of the assessee company at 48, friends Colony East, New Delhi, might reasonably be expected to be let out was Rs. 11,77,528/- (41,69,718 x 28.24%) and this amount should have been shown by the assessee as its income from house property 5 Mission Viejo Estate

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

section 54 was allowed where the new Simran Bagga residential property was purchased in the name o f the wife of the assessee. b) DIT vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide [2011] 15 taxmann.com 82 (Kar HC) - The Tribunal has allowed exemption u/s 54 for 12 Anil Bhardwaj Zambia investment in residential property by the assessee jointly with her husband. c) Kamlesh

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

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

ITO,WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. VINOD GUGNANI, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds of Appeal of the Revenue fails, consequently the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

125/- and claimed a refund of Rs. 8,94,050/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and statutory notices were issued. The assessment order came to be passed on 22.12.2018 by making a disallowance of Rs. 5,70,95,075/-. The Ld. AO was of the opinion that the assessee has failed to deposit the sale

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’).

section 54F, the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy the same. Similar views have been expressed in the under mentioned cases also: Asstt. CIT v. M. Raghuraman [2018] 91 taxmann.com 11/169 ITD 315 (Chennai - Trib.), Smt. Babitha Kemparaje ors v. CIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 43/167 ITD 125 (Bangalore - Trib.), Bhavna Cuccria

M/S. MATA VAISHNO ESTATES,KARNAL vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in all the years is allowed

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

house property” and also claimed deductions u/s 24, then it means that no deductions u/s 28 Page 2 of 11 to section 44 was allowable. Therefore, interest payable on the partner’s capital contribution and bank charges cannot be allowed. Accordingly, he made following disallowance in the various years:- Assessment Disallowance of Disallowance of bank year interest charges

ASHOK J THAPAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shrianubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Ashok J. Thapar Huf Vs. Dcit, A-3, Pamposh Enclave, Circle-62(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aadha7372L (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property even though the assessed had not acquired legal title to the ownership of the said property through a registered sale deed in her favor?" 2. In view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), the answer is required to be given in favor