DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property Rs. 22,33,67,403/- 5. Disallowance out of Aircraft and Helicopter expenses Rs. 3,17,34,000/- 5. Besides the AO while computing the total income at page 50 of its order inadvertently taken the loss at Rs. 55,32,91,87,098/- as against the correct returned loss of Rs. 55,33,78,55,356/-, thereby

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property Rs. 22,33,67,403/- 5. Disallowance out of Aircraft and Helicopter expenses Rs. 3,17,34,000/- 5. Besides the AO while computing the total income at page 50 of its order inadvertently taken the loss at Rs. 55,32,91,87,098/- as against the correct returned loss of Rs. 55,33,78,55,356/-, thereby

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property Rs. 22,33,67,403/- 5. Disallowance out of Aircraft and Helicopter expenses Rs. 3,17,34,000/- 5. Besides the AO while computing the total income at page 50 of its order inadvertently taken the loss at Rs. 55,32,91,87,098/- as against the correct returned loss of Rs. 55,33,78,55,356/-, thereby

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

MRS. RASHMI DHARIWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 11 and 12 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirashmi Dhariwal, Vs. Acit, Aashray Farms, Sub Po, Circle-23(1), Sawan Public School, Bhatti New Delhi Mines, Asola Village, New Delhi Pan:Aappd9702P (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and there could not have been any further additions. 16. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Co. Ltd.‟s case (supra) that in such circumstances

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

House Property. From the facts set out above it is apparent that the appellant which is a private discretionary trust had not given the properties to any outsider or third party but it was given for business use by the principal beneficiary of the Trust. In terms of the Deed of Trust, not only were the Trustees required to apply

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTER CIRCLE-4, DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

House Property. From the facts set out above it is apparent that the appellant which is a private discretionary trust had not given the properties to any outsider or third party but it was given for business use by the principal beneficiary of the Trust. In terms of the Deed of Trust, not only were the Trustees required to apply

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

House Property. From the facts set out above it is apparent that the appellant which is a private discretionary trust had not given the properties to any outsider or third party but it was given for business use by the principal beneficiary of the Trust. In terms of the Deed of Trust, not only were the Trustees required to apply

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

House Property. From the facts set out above it is apparent that the appellant which is a private discretionary trust had not given the properties to any outsider or third party but it was given for business use by the principal beneficiary of the Trust. In terms of the Deed of Trust, not only were the Trustees required to apply

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

House Property. From the facts set out above it is apparent that the appellant which is a private discretionary trust had not given the properties to any outsider or third party but it was given for business use by the principal beneficiary of the Trust. In terms of the Deed of Trust, not only were the Trustees required to apply

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

House Property. From the facts set out above it is apparent that the appellant which is a private discretionary trust had not given the properties to any outsider or third party but it was given for business use by the principal beneficiary of the Trust. In terms of the Deed of Trust, not only were the Trustees required to apply

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

House Property. From the facts set out above it is apparent that the appellant which is a private discretionary trust had not given the properties to any outsider or third party but it was given for business use by the principal beneficiary of the Trust. In terms of the Deed of Trust, not only were the Trustees required to apply

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. DEEPTI AGARWAL, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Deepti Agarwal, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, Prop M/S. Superior Fabrics, 14Th Floor, E-2, Block, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines, Prataykshkar Bhawan, Dr. New Delhi Shyama Prasad, Mukherjee Civc Pan: Aampa0573C Centre, Jn Nehru Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 145(3) invoked by the AO for rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law by allowing deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC to the tune of Rs. 4,67,93,495/- for her Dehradun Unit whereas the assessee had not fulfilled all the conditions required for claiming deduction u/s 80IC

M/S. MANJEET KAUR MEMORIAL PREMIER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

house property". It is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Calcutta High Court supra has held that income contemplated by the provisions of section 11 is the real income and not the income as assessed or assessable. Accordingly, while arriving at the rental income of the assessee-trust any expenditure incurred whatsoever related to the rental income

M/S. MANJIT KAUR MEMORIAL PREMIER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

house property". It is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Calcutta High Court supra has held that income contemplated by the provisions of section 11 is the real income and not the income as assessed or assessable. Accordingly, while arriving at the rental income of the assessee-trust any expenditure incurred whatsoever related to the rental income

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

house property’. 29. As regards the expenditure towards salaries and other benefits to its employees, postage and telegrams, travelling, rent and taxes, water and 2016:DHC:2463-DB ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 17 of 71 electricity, printing and stationery etc. in the sum of Rs.1,45,98,768.16, the AO allowed the entire expenditure

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’. 29. As regards the expenditure towards salaries and other benefits to its employees, postage and telegrams, travelling, rent and taxes, water and ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 17 of 71 electricity, printing and stationery etc. in the sum of Rs.1,45,98,768.16, the AO allowed the entire expenditure of Rs. 37,58,036 on the employees