THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. GALGOTIA BOOKS & DEPARTMENT STORE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

property in question) and the enforcement authority (the State). Since the second of the above species of "proceeds of crime" uses the expression "such property", the qualifying word being "such", it is vivid that the "property" referred to here is equivalent to the one indicated by the first kind. The only difference is that it is not the same property

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. SALDI CHITS PVT. LTD.,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

property in question) and the enforcement authority (the State). Since the second of the above species of "proceeds of crime" uses the expression "such property", the qualifying word being "such", it is vivid that the "property" referred to here is equivalent to the one indicated by the first kind. The only difference is that it is not the same property

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI CENTRAL III vs. MONI KUMAR SUBBA

House property is on a deemed basis. The tax has to be paid by reason of the ownership of the property. Even if one does not incur any sum on account of repairs, a statutory deduction therefore is allowed and where on repairs expenses are incurred in excess of such statutory limit, no deduction for such excess is allowed

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

131(1) on 5-1-2006 and offered to surrender amount attributable to him in investment in property. Hon’ble P&H High Court held that no immunity could be claimed by assessee from levy of penalty in terms of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 2 CIT Vs Prasanna Duqar T20151 59 taxmann.com 99 (Calcutta)/T20151

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

131(1) on 5-1-2006 and offered to surrender amount attributable to him in investment in property. Hon’ble P&H High Court held that no immunity could be claimed by assessee from levy of penalty in terms of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 2 CIT Vs Prasanna Duqar T20151 59 taxmann.com 99 (Calcutta)/T20151

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

131(1) on 5-1-2006 and offered to surrender amount attributable to him in investment in property. Hon’ble P&H High Court held that no immunity could be claimed by assessee from levy of penalty in terms of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 2 CIT Vs Prasanna Duqar T20151 59 taxmann.com 99 (Calcutta)/T20151

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

SELECT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

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

131,595,335 1,935,074,645 14. From the above it is quite apparent that only license fee has been shown by the assessee as income from house property under section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

house property and income from other sources. The assessees argue that they cannot be penalized, since the fifth explanation to Section 271(c) – which applies to search cases- is attracted. They also argue that the Tribunal’s previous order in the connected cases bound it and the doctrine of precedent as well as ITA Nos. 995,997/2010

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

house property and income from other sources. The assessees argue that they cannot be penalized, since the fifth explanation to Section 271(c) – which applies to search cases- is attracted. They also argue that the Tribunal’s previous order in the connected cases bound it and the doctrine of precedent as well as ITA Nos. 995,997/2010

CENTRAL GOVT.EMP. CONSUMER COO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is dismissed and pending applications

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

House of Lords decided that a “matter of degree” is a question of fact and it has also been decided that a finding by the Commissioners of a fact under a misapprehension of law or want of evidence to support a finding are both questions of law. 25. The Privy Council in CIT v. Laxminarain Badridas

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

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

property must he held under a trust or other legal obligation and not the fund derived therefrom. We have already shown that Jorhat Races were not the subject- matter of a trust and only a trust has been created in respect of the surplus find. The surplus find really emanates from a prgperty which is not a subject-matter

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

property must he held under a trust or other legal obligation and not the fund derived therefrom. We have already shown that Jorhat Races were not the subject- matter of a trust and only a trust has been created in respect of the surplus find. The surplus find really emanates from a prgperty which is not a subject-matter

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

property must he held under a trust or other legal obligation and not the fund derived therefrom. We have already shown that Jorhat Races were not the subject- matter of a trust and only a trust has been created in respect of the surplus find. The surplus find really emanates from a prgperty which is not a subject-matter

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

property must he held under a trust or other legal obligation and not the fund derived therefrom. We have already shown that Jorhat Races were not the subject- matter of a trust and only a trust has been created in respect of the surplus find. The surplus find really emanates from a prgperty which is not a subject-matter

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

property must he held under a trust or other legal obligation and not the fund derived therefrom. We have already shown that Jorhat Races were not the subject- matter of a trust and only a trust has been created in respect of the surplus find. The surplus find really emanates from a prgperty which is not a subject-matter

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

property must he held under a trust or other legal obligation and not the fund derived therefrom. We have already shown that Jorhat Races were not the subject- matter of a trust and only a trust has been created in respect of the surplus find. The surplus find really emanates from a prgperty which is not a subject-matter