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 f20J2} 206 Taxman 584/ 19 taxmann. Cam 316, which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us. A perusal of above Judgment, it clearly reveals that hon'able High Court has taken and interpreted the definition of housing project u/s 80HHA to arrived at the concept of composite housing

M/S. IDEAL HITECH ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house property was deemed to be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. In many cases, however, the actual rent received or receivable in a year exceeds the municipal valuation of the property. Sub-section (1) of section 23 has been amended to provide that where any property is in occupation

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

section 54 to only one house property of the assessee at 345 Block-C, Omaxe, Noida City, Greater Noida for Rs. 79,71,600/-. Accordingly, in para 20.20 he determined the LTCG at Rs. 98,81,868/- i.e. (Rs. 1,78,53,468/- as computed by the assessee – Rs. 79,71,600/- invested in the above Greater Noida property

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the Act were also issued to collect bank statements of the assessee. The issues relevant for determination of total income of the assessee were discussed. 3 Regarding claim of deduction on account of share transfer expenses and deduction under Section 54F of the Act, it was noted that during the relevant previous year, the assessee has received

SH. ANKIT MITTAL,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

sections 22 to 26— i. an individual who transfers otherwise than for adequate consideration any house property to his or her spouse, not being a transfer in connection with an agreement to live apart, or to a minor child not being a married daughter, shall be deemed to be the owner of the house property so transferred; 7 Ankit Mittal

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

house is constructed, the capital gain is not to be charged under Section 45 of the said Act. ” 5.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OTHER ARGUMENTS IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DELHI HIGH COURT VIDE AFORESAID DECISION IN CASE OF KU LD EEP SINGH CATEGQRIZED THE ACQUISITION OF AN APARTMENT UNDER A BUILDER BUYERS AGREEMENT WHEREIN J>IE BUILDER GETS CONSTRUCTION DONE

WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

house property. In support, reliance is placed on Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC); Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC); PCIT vs. Sri Bharathi Warehousing Corporation (2017) 392 ITR 160 (AP). 6.8.4 Likewise, it is submitted that the amount of Rs. 13,43,161/- received by way of reimbursement

RAMESH CHANDER BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 53(5), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house i.e. at Defense Colony Gurgaon and Malibu Town Gurgaon, although both were jointly owned with his wife Smt. Savita Bhasin. The reliance placed on the above judicial rulings brings out co-jointly owing a residential property cannot be treated as absolute ownership and thus, the deduction 12 ITA.No.161/Del./2020 Smt. Savita Bhasin L.R. of (wife) Shri Ramesh Chander

ASHUTOSH GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2013-14

house property” Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.2,75,520 made in the assessment order. 11 16. The last and ground no.5 of grounds of appeal of the assessee is in respect of enhancing the income by the learned CIT (Appeals) on account of loss on sale of land. We observe from the learned

DLF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

house property’ to ‘income from business or profession’ and thereby making addition of Rs. 21,27,10,118/-. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 21,27,10,118/- made by the AO is deleted.” In view of the aforesaid finding, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has given a correct finding and as submitted by the Ld. AR for the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER | ITA NO. 674/Del/2024 | | A.YR.: 2018-19 | | DLF LIMITED, | | 9TH FLOOR, DLF CENTRE, | | SANSAD MARG, | | NEW DELHI – 110 001 | | (PAN: AAACD3494N) | | (APPELLANT) | | VS. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI | | (RESPONDENT) | AND | ITA NO. 712/DEL/2024 | | AY 2018-19 | | DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1), | | NEW DELHI | | ROOM NO. 404, 4TH FLOOR, | | C.R. BUILDING, | | I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 2 | | (RESPONDENT) | | VS.

house property’ to ‘income from business or profession’ and thereby making addition of Rs. 21,27,10,118/-. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 21,27,10,118/- made by the AO is deleted.” In view of the aforesaid finding, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has given a correct finding and as submitted by the Ld. AR for the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FIS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and both Cos are allowed as above

Bench: SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

house development etc. Thus, it was contended that this comparable was functionally dissimilar. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that thiscomparabledid not fulfil the prime condition of the filters applied by the TPO (companies whose revenue from IT enabled services was not less than 75% of total operating revenue). The Ld. Counsel took us to page 60 of the Convenience Compilation

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. FIS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTION INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and both Cos are allowed as above

Bench: SHRISUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

house development etc. Thus, it was contended that this comparable was functionally dissimilar. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that thiscomparabledid not fulfil the prime condition of the filters applied by the TPO (companies whose revenue from IT enabled services was not less than 75% of total operating revenue). The Ld. Counsel took us to page 60 of the Convenience Compilation

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

133/- and depreciation for the current year is Rs. 11,79,026/-. The AO did not agree and disallowed the claim of the assessee on the basis that expenses incurred are permissible only if any business or profession was carried on during the year and these expenses are not permissible to be adjusted against income from house property as claimed

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

133/- and depreciation for the current year is Rs. 11,79,026/-. The AO did not agree and disallowed the claim of the assessee on the basis that expenses incurred are permissible only if any business or profession was carried on during the year and these expenses are not permissible to be adjusted against income from house property as claimed

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

house property. The DRP vide its directions dated 18.09.2023 passed u/s 144C(13) of the Act, upheld the aforesaid action of the AO, pursuant to which final assessment order dated 18.10.2023 was passed at an assessed income of Rs. 4,16,38,920/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act. The assessee has earned an LTCG

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 144C(13) of the Act dated 27/04/2023 by making 4 Anil Bhardwaj Zambia addition of Rs. 20,10,008/- as short term capital gain and further disallowed Rs. 80,14,041/- u/s 54 of the Act being 50% wife’s shares in the new house property. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C