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

house property. The legal position as put forward by Mr. Sabharwal is correct and there cannot be any quarrel about the same. The entire question is as to how to determine the „fair rent‟ when the property is already let out, particularly when the assessee, as landlord has received a huge amount of security deposit from the tenant, which gives

SHUMA KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee failed on all five grounds raised before us

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishuma Kalra, Vs. Pr. Cit-12, A-28, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaipk8142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54 to 54F as submitted by the assessee before him. He further submitted that Rohini property was mere a purchase of open plot admeasuring 332.50 sq mtrs. The assessee merely incurred expenditure of Rs. 6 lakhs on the above property. The details of construction cost Rs. 6 lakhs, which is stated by the assessee being the construction cost

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 amounting to Rs 21,27,10,118/-. 5. Whether the Ld. NFAC under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,98,74,706/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of expenses of Helicopter and Aircraft which were not related to business of 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 amounting to Rs 21,27,10,118/-. 5. Whether the Ld. NFAC under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,98,74,706/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of expenses of Helicopter and Aircraft which were not related to business of assessee

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

properties claimed as being vacant farm lands needs verification by the AO for ascertaining the correctness of the claim that no house/building was constructed on such lands. Thus the issue is hereby, restored to AO. If it is found true that during the relevant time, no house property/commercial space were constructed thereon. No addition would be called for. Thus, Ground

M/S AMBIENCE HOTELS & RESORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

140 ITR 16, 26 (Guj)]. Also see, “Diversion or application of income", u/s. 4, ante. The object underlying the provisions of section 60 is to meet with the device which was being adopted by the assessees by which while retaining the interest in the property, its income would be allowed to go to someone else, so that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

140 ITR 16, 26 (Guj)]. Also see, “Diversion or application of income", u/s. 4, ante. The object underlying the provisions of section 60 is to meet with the device which was being adopted by the assessees by which while retaining the interest in the property, its income would be allowed to go to someone else, so that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

140 ITR 16, 26 (Guj)]. Also see, “Diversion or application of income", u/s. 4, ante. The object underlying the provisions of section 60 is to meet with the device which was being adopted by the assessees by which while retaining the interest in the property, its income would be allowed to go to someone else, so that

M/S AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

140 ITR 16, 26 (Guj)]. Also see, “Diversion or application of income", u/s. 4, ante. The object underlying the provisions of section 60 is to meet with the device which was being adopted by the assessees by which while retaining the interest in the property, its income would be allowed to go to someone else, so that

ANDREY ANDREEV,MUMBAI vs. CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-(03), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2002/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Andrey Andreev, Vs Cit(Intl. Taxation)-03, C/O Sushil Budhia Associates, New Delhi Ca, 1103, Level 11, Universal Majestic, Behind Rbk International School, Ghatkopar Mankhurd, Link Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400043 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpa5288P Assessee By : Sh. Y. K. Kapur, Adv. & Sh. Bhushan Kapur, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2022

140/- owing to computation of the taxable capital gains as NIL. The computation of capital gains was as under: • Sale cost of the residential cost of - Rs. 7,05,00,000/-. • Indexed cost of acquisition – Rs.3,45,92,417/- • Exemption u/s 54 claimed – Rs.3,59,07,583/- • Taxable capital gains - Rs. Nil 3. Owing to the fact that the assessee

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

H.T. MEDIA LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

House Property’ which shows that plaintiff and late Sardar Nirmal Singh were not deriving any rental income from the suit property or any other property. 34. It is a matter of record that by the virtue of Section 140

SAAMAG CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524 (SC). The assessee-company, therefore, submitted that when a sum of money is received with certain restrictions, obligations and duties to be performed, then it is only when these acts are duly complied with, income will accrue/arise to be taxable under sections 4 and 5 of the Income

SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524 (SC). The assessee-company, therefore, submitted that when a sum of money is received with certain restrictions, obligations and duties to be performed, then it is only when these acts are duly complied with, income will accrue/arise to be taxable under sections 4 and 5 of the Income

PYRAMID REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524 (SC). The assessee-company, therefore, submitted that when a sum of money is received with certain restrictions, obligations and duties to be performed, then it is only when these acts are duly complied with, income will accrue/arise to be taxable under sections 4 and 5 of the Income

SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524 (SC). The assessee-company, therefore, submitted that when a sum of money is received with certain restrictions, obligations and duties to be performed, then it is only when these acts are duly complied with, income will accrue/arise to be taxable under sections 4 and 5 of the Income

JYOTI JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ground no. 5 of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.4983/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Jyoti Jain, 25/94, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi 110007 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan No: Adipj-0775-G बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(2), New Delhi

140 to 157 of the paper book. The property purchased in joint names in the year February 2011 comprised of ground floor plus one half of the first floor, plus one half of second floor. Thereafter, on 22.04.2013 the assessee along with her husband purchased remaining one half share in the first floor and one half share in second floor

SANJAY SHARMA,GREATER NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sanjay Sharma, Vs Acit, Flat 4063, Ats Paradiso, Noida. Sec-Chi-04, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308. Pan-Amkps9185L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 23.12.2021. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Ground Of Appeal:- 1. “In The Instant Case The Appellant Assessee While Submitting The Income Tax Return For The Financial Year Ended On 31-03-2012 (Relevant To The Asst. Year 2012-13) Inadvertently Forgotten To Submit The Details For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Did Not Mentioned The Details Of Sale Of Residential House Property & Utilization Of Long-Term Capital Gain Arising Out Of Sale Of Residential House Property In The Purchase Of Another/New Residential House Property. Consequently, Income Demand Of Rs. 5,61,107/- Was Raised Against The Appellant Assessee Followed By The Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

House Property at Flat 4063. ATS Paradiso, CHI-04, Greater Noida. Hence, amount of Long Term Capital gain is fully exempt u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (Kindly refer Page no.27 To 46) The Grounds of Appeal furnished herewith (Kindly refer Page no.57 to Page no.58) are in itself self-explanatory and the same may kindly be reviewed