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

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

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

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

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

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

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

Housing Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center Delhi ; 441 ITR 285(del)  Devanshu Infin Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center Delhi ;284 Taxman 36  Ramprastha Buildwell (P.) Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center, Delhi; 283 Taxman 235 13  KRS Home Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre ;283 Taxman 413  Umkal Healthcare (P.) Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

SH. ADARSH KUMAR SWARUP,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was also issued on 21.6.2013 alongwith questionnaire. In compliance to the statutory notices u/s. 143(2)/142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Assessee’s AR attended the proceedings from time to time and filed the required details and documents. During the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed

(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

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire was issued requiring the assessee to furnish explanation in relation to exemption claimed u/s. 54F of the Act alongwith evidences. In response to these notices, the assessee vide submissions dated 02.11.2018 and 13.12.2018 furnished the agreement dated 27.07.2016 by virtue of which sale proceeds were utilized towards purchase of the property and also

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

142) • ENN ZEN Enterprises (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT: 45 ITRT) 382 (Chandigarh ITAT) • Global Tech Park (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT: 119 TTJ 421 (Bang) 11. Ld. AR, without prejudice submitted that lease rental is taxable under section 56 of the Act. He submitted that as per the provisions of clause (iti) of sub section (2) of section

MAHAVIR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

house property, income from business, STCG and income from other sources. Besides this, he had also claimed Rs.60,96,900/- as exempt income u/s 10(38) on account of long term capital gains from sale of listed shares on which STT was paid. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Though the proceedings of assessment

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

142(1), then the provisions of section 144 are attracted and the Ld. AO has the power to pass an order to the best of his judgment. In such scenario, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is illegal and void ab initio. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the retraction filed

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

142(1), then the provisions of section 144 are attracted and the Ld. AO has the power to pass an order to the best of his judgment. In such scenario, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is illegal and void ab initio. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the retraction filed

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

142(1), then the provisions of section 144 are attracted and the Ld. AO has the power to pass an order to the best of his judgment. In such scenario, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is illegal and void ab initio. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the retraction filed

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

142(1), then the provisions of section 144 are attracted and the Ld. AO has the power to pass an order to the best of his judgment. In such scenario, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is illegal and void ab initio. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the retraction filed

M/S. CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date

M/S. CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date

M/S. UNITECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

houses etc. 3. Assessee has filed its return of income on 4.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.704,98,86,354/-. A draft assessment order was prepared by the AO on 13.4.2011 which was served upon the assessee. It has filed its objection before the ld.DRP and the ld.DRP has passed its order under section 144C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

houses etc. 3. Assessee has filed its return of income on 4.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.704,98,86,354/-. A draft assessment order was prepared by the AO on 13.4.2011 which was served upon the assessee. It has filed its objection before the ld.DRP and the ld.DRP has passed its order under section 144C