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

section 22 are satisfied. Their Lordships further held that merely there is an entry in the object clause of the business showing a particular object, would not be the determinative factor to arrive at a conclusion that the income is to be treated as income from business or otherwise. It would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each

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 of the Act is available to one house property holding that the amendment which came into effect from 1.4.2015 has to be applied retrospectively. It is this proposition of Ld. CIT(A) which is sought to be challenged in the additional grounds taken by the assessee before the Tribunal. 7 14. The Ld. AR submitted that the case

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATBIR SINGH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri O.P.Kantacit, Satbir Singh, Circle-33(1), 4/73, Wea Krishna Vs. New Delhi Market, Karolbagh, New Delhi Pan:Aogps9991A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. Dr, Respondent By : Sh. Y.P. Rawala, Ca

house property" instead of Page 2 of 10 "income from other sources" in view of the decision in M K Dar vs CIT (1982) 138 ITR 801 (All.) and CIT vs DL Kanhere (1973) 92 ITR 535 (Bom.) where it was held that the lease income enjoyed from the letting out of the cinema building and the furniture, etc. would

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

section 22, of the Income-tax Act. 1961 Business\nincome Chargeable as (Letting out of properties) Whether where in terms\nof memorandum of association, main object of assessee-company was to\nacquire properties and earn income by letting out same, said income was\nto be brought to tax as business income and not as income from house\nproperty - Held

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. AMITA GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

house property income is hereby deleted.” 10. Now the department is in appeal and the assessee has filed Cross Objection. The ld. DR reiterated the observations made by the AO in the assessment order dated 30.12.2010 and further submitted that the assessee filed copy of the rent agreement before the ld. CIT(A) and not before

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RANJANA GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

house property income is hereby deleted.” 10. Now the department is in appeal and the assessee has filed Cross Objection. The ld. DR reiterated the observations made by the AO in the assessment order dated 30.12.2010 and further submitted that the assessee filed copy of the rent agreement before the ld. CIT(A) and not before

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CETRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

section 22, of the Income-tax Act. 1961 Business\nincome Chargeable as (Letting out of properties) Whether where in terms\nof memorandum of association, main object of assessee-company was to\nacquire properties and earn income by letting out same, said income was\nto be brought to tax as business income and not as income from house\nproperty - Held

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

section 22, of the Income-tax Act. 1961 Business\nincome Chargeable as (Letting out of properties) Whether where in terms\nof memorandum of association, main object of assessee-company was to\nacquire properties and earn income by letting out same, said income was\nto be brought to tax as business income and not as income from house\nproperty - Held

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 138 of the NI Act. It was noted that the appellant deposed that she is running a dairy with 8 buffaloes, and that the appellant is not paying any Income Tax. It was noted that the husband of the appellant was an agricultural labour, and Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:28.12.2024 17:23:03 Signature Not Verified CRL.L.P. 598/2019

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. ASHOK KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6105/Del/2017: Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Ashok Kumar, Central Circle-26, 13, Ashoka Avenue, Dlf Farms, New Delhi-110055 Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepc1877D

138/- making the following additions/disallowances: i. Unexplained expenditure Rs.3,30,00,000/- ii. Rental income Rs.13,57,351/- 5. Brief facts of this issue are that the marriage of Sh. Kamal, son of the assessee namely, Sh. Ashok Kumar Choudhary (AKC) was performed with Ms. Devika daughter of Sh. Trilok Chand Choudhary(TCC). A search u/s 132A was conducted

PR. CIT-21 vs. THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.

Bench: The Complaint Was Filed. The Respondent Used To Run A Business Digitally Signed By:Ranju Bhalla Signing Date:11.12.2023 18:52:15 Signature Not Verified

property dealing and selling plots in Delhi and Ghaziabad. In the first week of June 2007, the appellant contacted the respondent for the purchase of a plot. A deal was entered into between the parties for the purchase of a plot of land for a sum of Rs. 2,07,500/-. ii. It is the case of the appellant that

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, income from other sources and capital gains (the latter having been inserted by Finance Act, 2003 with retrospective effect from 1st April 1979). Apart from the above three, there is also mentioned ‘any income by way of voluntary contributions received by a political party’ from any person. 76. The question that arises is whether income

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, income from other sources and capital gains (the latter having been inserted by Finance Act, 2003 with retrospective effect from 1st April 1979). Apart from the above three, there is also mentioned ‘any income by way of voluntary contributions received by a political party’ from any person. 76. The question that arises is whether income

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

house property, income from other sources and capital gains (the latter having been inserted by Finance Act, 2003 with retrospective effect from 1st April 1979). Apart from the above three, there is also mentioned ‘any income by way of voluntary contributions received by a political party’ from any person. 76. The question that arises is whether income

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)

section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act. Therefore, in view of the above factual and legal position, both house tax paid Rs. 67,50,000/- and deduction u/s 24(a) of Rs. 56,97,000/- is allowable. The AO is directed to allow the same accordingly. ” 4.6 Ld. Counsel referred to PB 9-11 the copy of the Agreement

RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-30(2) , DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Property, in respect of which supporting documents filed by the appellant/assessee, as allowable deduction under section 5 54 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. Hence, this appeal is here. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative (In short, the ‘AR’), did not press the grounds numbered

ORIENT CRAFT LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GURGAON

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

section 154 is 31.03.2021 and date of supreme Court 1097/Del/2023 order in checkmate services Private Limited v CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518 is 12.10.2022. 8. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the AO u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) and 143(1)making additions of Rs. 24,000/- in the house property income of the assessee