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

2) had been issued, continued to proceed as if he was making an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Hence, the order made under section 153A/ 143(3) is not legally tenable and ought to have been made under section 144 of the Act. There is a clear distinction between the two forms of orders i.e. section

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

2) had been issued, continued to proceed as if he was making an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Hence, the order made under section 153A/ 143(3) is not legally tenable and ought to have been made under section 144 of the Act. There is a clear distinction between the two forms of orders i.e. section

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

2) had been issued, continued to proceed as if he was making an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Hence, the order made under section 153A/ 143(3) is not legally tenable and ought to have been made under section 144 of the Act. There is a clear distinction between the two forms of orders i.e. section

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

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

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

2,40,00,000/- and earned LTCG of Rs. 1,78,53,468/- which she claimed as exempt under section 54 of 6 the Act because she purchased two properties namely property No. 345, Block-C in Greater Noida for Rs. 79,71,600/- on 25.10.2011 and property No. 32-D, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi

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

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

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

House of Parliament.” 9. In our considered opinion pursuant to the faceless regime introduced by the Govt. of India, National e Assessment Centre becomes Income Tax Authority vested with the powers of issuing notice, transferring the case, framing the assessment etc. Once, any document which is (ld DRP directions dated 25.03.2022 in the instant case) is uploaded in the ITBA

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

2) Where the property consists of a house or part of a house which— (a) is in the occupation of the owner for the purposes of his own residence; or (b) cannot actually be occupied by the owner by reason of the fact that owing to his employment, business or profession carried on at shall be taken

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

2) Where the property consists of a house or part of a house which— (a) is in the occupation of the owner for the purposes of his own residence; or (b) cannot actually be occupied by the owner by reason of the fact that owing to his employment, business or profession carried on at shall be taken

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

2) Where the property consists of a house or part of a house which— (a) is in the occupation of the owner for the purposes of his own residence; or (b) cannot actually be occupied by the owner by reason of the fact that owing to his employment, business or profession carried on at shall be taken

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

2) Where the property consists of a house or part of a house which— (a) is in the occupation of the owner for the purposes of his own residence; or (b) cannot actually be occupied by the owner by reason of the fact that owing to his employment, business or profession carried on at shall be taken

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

2) Where the property consists of a house or part of a house which— (a) is in the occupation of the owner for the purposes of his own residence; or (b) cannot actually be occupied by the owner by reason of the fact that owing to his employment, business or profession carried on at shall be taken

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

2) of the Act‖ 2018:DHC:2640-DB ITA No. 169/2005+connected appeal Page 4 of 77 7. Search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Act were conducted on 25th November, 1999 in the case of BSL Group and Mr. M.S. Aggarwal, who has been hereinafter referred to the respondent/ assessee. 8. During the course of search, several

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 58,09,780/- made by AO on account of notional ALV in respect of unsold spaces/ flats treating the same as income from house property. 3. On the facts and circumstances

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. UV REALTORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

house property on the ground that assessee has not produced any evidence. 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, the assessee challenged that, ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law in passing ex-parte assessment order u/s.144 without having jurisdiction over the case on the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee was registered at New Delhi

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

2) of the Act and that the same remained unverified, is ex\nfacie incorrect and contrary to the records. The records of the concerned\nAO which reflects that all details were duly filed and verified by the AO.\nReliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi\nHigh Court in PCIT v. M/s. Brahma Centre Development

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