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

144 of the Act. Hence the orders so passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) for the A.Y 2012-13 and under section 153A read with section 143(3) for the A.Ys 2011-12 and 2009-10 suffer from an incurable jurisdictional defect and cannot be upheld. On this count alone the assessment orders in respect of A.Ys

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

144 of the Act. Hence the orders so passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) for the A.Y 2012-13 and under section 153A read with section 143(3) for the A.Ys 2011-12 and 2009-10 suffer from an incurable jurisdictional defect and cannot be upheld. On this count alone the assessment orders in respect of A.Ys

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

144 of the Act. Hence the orders so passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) for the A.Y 2012-13 and under section 153A read with section 143(3) for the A.Ys 2011-12 and 2009-10 suffer from an incurable jurisdictional defect and cannot be upheld. On this count alone the assessment orders in respect of A.Ys

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

144 taxmann.com 136. Without prejudice, the Ld. AR further contended that since the assessee had already made investment in two properties before the due date of filing belated return under section 139(4) of the Act and paid substantial amount, the exemption under section 54 can not be denied on the ground that balance amount of capital gain

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

144. Therefore, the assessment of income from house property, thereby presuming/assuming that the whole property has been let out is based on suspicion because the assessee has not let out the whole building but only a portion thereof, i.e. third floor only. Hence whatever the ALV has to be taken, that has to be taken only in respect of third

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DLEHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

144. Therefore, the assessment of income from house property, thereby presuming/assuming that the whole property has been let out is based on suspicion because the assessee has not let out the whole building but only a portion thereof, i.e. third floor only. Hence whatever the ALV has to be taken, that has to be taken only in respect of third

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

144. Therefore, the assessment of income from house property, thereby presuming/assuming that the whole property has been let out is based on suspicion because the assessee has not let out the whole building but only a portion thereof, i.e. third floor only. Hence whatever the ALV has to be taken, that has to be taken only in respect of third

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

144. Therefore, the assessment of income from house property, thereby presuming/assuming that the whole property has been let out is based on suspicion because the assessee has not let out the whole building but only a portion thereof, i.e. third floor only. Hence whatever the ALV has to be taken, that has to be taken only in respect of third

ASHA BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.539 To 544/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 To 2017-18 बनाम Asha Burman Acit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Vs. Circle 46(1), 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Drum Shape Building, Ito, Pan No.Aaepb0966C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

144. Therefore, the assessment of income from house property, thereby presuming/assuming that the whole property has been let out is based on suspicion because the assessee has not let out the whole building but only a portion thereof, i.e. third floor only. Hence whatever the ALV has to be taken, that has to be taken only in respect of third

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI, DELHI

property. The said tax position was also duly accepted by\nthe department in the preceding and succeeding year. The assessee\nalready claimed standard deduction under Section 24(a) of the Act to the\ntune of Rs.57,81,40,137/- upon making suo motu disallowance of other\nexpenses amounting to Rs.13,68,61,227/- in regard to the house\nproperty income

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

144 (SC) c) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries (SC) 358 ITR 0295 4.1.17 In view of above discussion, it is held that-the appellant has rightly computed long term capital gain as per mode of computation prescribed in section 48 of Income Tax Act and the Assessing Officer was not justified in computing income

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

144 (SC) c) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries (SC) 358 ITR 0295 4.1.17 In view of above discussion, it is held that-the appellant has rightly computed long term capital gain as per mode of computation prescribed in section 48 of Income Tax Act and the Assessing Officer was not justified in computing income

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) DELHI-2, JHANDEWALAN NEW DELHI, DELHI

property. The said tax position was also duly accepted by\nthe department in the preceding and succeeding year. The assessee\nalready claimed standard deduction under Section 24(a) of the Act to the\ntune of Rs.57,81,40,137/- upon making suo motu disallowance of other\nexpenses amounting to Rs.13,68,61,227/- in regard to the house\nproperty income

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

SHIVANI MADAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, NEW DELHI

In the result, the both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 22 of the Act is related with the taxability of the income from house property and not with the interest of a person in the property. Part of the payment, however small, has been made by the appellant. The dominion over the property existed in the name of wife and she was lawfully entitled to claim the income emerging

SHIVANI MADAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, NEW DELHI

In the result, the both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 22 of the Act is related with the taxability of the income from house property and not with the interest of a person in the property. Part of the payment, however small, has been made by the appellant. The dominion over the property existed in the name of wife and she was lawfully entitled to claim the income emerging

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

house property, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83. Mr Singh is right

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

section 23 of the Act, relating to taxation of income under the head 'income from house property' as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT: 373 ITR 673. It would, however, be pertinent to point out that the Supreme Court has admitted the Special Leave Petition filed by the assessee against

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

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

144 of the Act). Assessee, against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, has filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act (vide application dated 16.06.2020) and the same is pending disposal. The CIT(A) in the impugned order has directed the AO to dispose off the said rectification application dated 16.06.2020. Moreover, if assessee