ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM vs. DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD., GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

House Property". It is also not in dispute that this is the second year and in first year, this issue had come up for consideration in AY 2012-13 (supra) where the Tribunal has accepted the claim of the assessee. Not only that, even the Department in AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 vide assessment order passed u/s 143(3

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

House Property". It is also not in dispute that this is the second year and in first year, this issue had come up for consideration in AY 2012-13 (supra) where the Tribunal has accepted the claim of the assessee. Not only that, even the Department in AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 vide assessment order passed u/s 143(3

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

House Property". It is also not in dispute that this is the second year and in first year, this issue had come up for consideration in AY 2012-13 (supra) where the Tribunal has accepted the claim of the assessee. Not only that, even the Department in AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 vide assessment order passed u/s 143(3

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

House Property". It is also not in dispute that this is the second year and in first year, this issue had come up for consideration in AY 2012-13 (supra) where the Tribunal has accepted the claim of the assessee. Not only that, even the Department in AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 vide assessment order passed u/s 143(3

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

House Property". It is also not in dispute that this is the second year and in first year, this issue had come up for consideration in AY 2012-13 (supra) where the Tribunal has accepted the claim of the assessee. Not only that, even the Department in AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 vide assessment order passed u/s 143(3

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

House Property". It is also not in dispute that this is the second year and in first year, this issue had come up for consideration in AY 2012-13 (supra) where the Tribunal has accepted the claim of the assessee. Not only that, even the Department in AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 vide assessment order passed u/s 143(3

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

section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, we are proceeding to adjudicate the other issue raised by the assessee which is common to all the assessment years and will have a bearing on the AY 2010-11. The seized diaries and the income arising therefrom do not belong to the assessee. 48 Another legal issue argued before us is that

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

section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, we are proceeding to adjudicate the other issue raised by the assessee which is common to all the assessment years and will have a bearing on the AY 2010-11. The seized diaries and the income arising therefrom do not belong to the assessee. 48 Another legal issue argued before us is that

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

section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, we are proceeding to adjudicate the other issue raised by the assessee which is common to all the assessment years and will have a bearing on the AY 2010-11. The seized diaries and the income arising therefrom do not belong to the assessee. 48 Another legal issue argued before us is that

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

section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, we are proceeding to adjudicate the other issue raised by the assessee which is common to all the assessment years and will have a bearing on the AY 2010-11. The seized diaries and the income arising therefrom do not belong to the assessee. 48 Another legal issue argued before us is that

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 24(a) of the Act. Ground No. 5: Without prejudice to the above grounds, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance amounting to Rs. 2,81,24,572 on account of depreciation on assets other than building by treating entire income from leasing as income from house property without dividing the same proportionately between income from house

DCIT(E), CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI vs. INDIAN GRAMEEN SERVICES, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

3) of Section 13 otherwise than for adequate consideration. In order to determine the same, the context of the facts of the particular case needs to be For determining "Adequate‟ consideration/rent, appreciated. however, market rent or rate is not the sole yardstick; other circumstances of the case also need to be considered. 20.2.1. In Reva Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner

PAVEL GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 63(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3606/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Pavel Garg, Vs Acit, Dtj-120, 1St Floor, Jasola Tower-B, Circle-63(1), Jasola, New Delhi-110025 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpg2923R Assessee By : Sh. S.B. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2022

house property remaining vacant. Section 24(1)(ix) was deleted from statute vide Finance Act, 2001 and simultaneously section 23(1)(c) was inserted. Prior to deletion, section 24(1)(ix) read as - “where the property is let and was vacant during a part of the year, that part of the annual value 6 Pavel Garg which is proportionate

ARYA SMAJ MODEL TOWN,DELHI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -3, NEW DELHI

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

13(1)(c) of the Act.\n\n5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following\ngrounds of appeal :-\n\n\"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order 12A\nr.w.s.12AA and Section 12AB (4) of the Act passed by Pr. Commissioner of\nIncome Tax, Central - 3 (hereinafter referred

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

3,77,65,215/- . Assessee further made an investment in construction of a residential unit at 19 Kautilya Marg, New Delhi [As per agreement with the builder] and claimed deduction of Rs 1.70 Crore. He claimed deduction of purchase of these two properties u/s 54 of the act. 13. Further assessee made investment of Rs 50 Lakhs in Rural Electrification

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

3,77,65,215/- . Assessee further made an investment in construction of a residential unit at 19 Kautilya Marg, New Delhi [As per agreement with the builder] and claimed deduction of Rs 1.70 Crore. He claimed deduction of purchase of these two properties u/s 54 of the act. 13. Further assessee made investment of Rs 50 Lakhs in Rural Electrification

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

3,77,65,215/- . Assessee further made an investment in construction of a residential unit at 19 Kautilya Marg, New Delhi [As per agreement with the builder] and claimed deduction of Rs 1.70 Crore. He claimed deduction of purchase of these two properties u/s 54 of the act. 13. Further assessee made investment of Rs 50 Lakhs in Rural Electrification

RAJEEV VASUDEVA,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1) , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: us, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

3 in the above table, was not handed over to the assessee. Hence, we hold that the decision of Pune Tribunal is factually distinguishable with the assessee. 12. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon herein above, we hold that the assessee was not owning more than one house property on the date