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

ASHISH DHAWAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiashish Dhawan, Vs. Acit, 55-A, Jor Bagh, Circle-31(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Adlpd9621N (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 of the Act. 2. The ld CIT(A) and ld AO have erred in law and on the basis of the case in reducing the exemption claimed by the appellant under section 54F of the Act by excluding Rs. 1231260/- incurred in relation to the construction of residential house property

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. AGGARWAL PLASTO CHEM PVT.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

house at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, purchased and acquired by Smt Alka Rajvansh W/o Shri Homi Rajvansh, in the name of her company M/s Mahanivesh Oil and Foods Pvt Ltd, against the consideration value of ₹ 1,35,00,000/- excluding stamp duty and Corpn. tax of ₹ 10,80,000/- is the Proceeds of Crime, which is likely to be concealed

SATYAMURTI RAMASUNDAR,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Satyamurti Ramasunder, Acit, D-502, Ivy Complex, Circle 4(1), Vs. Sushant Lok, 1-Blocka, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana). (Pan: Aaapr0741H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

154: The Appellant vide letter dated 01.03.2017 submitted that deduction u/s 54 was correctly claimed, inasmuch as, the new property was purchased on 19.1.2011 Le the date of conveyance deed. Since the original asset was transferred on 5.8.2011, therefore, the new property was purchased with-in one year of transfer of original asset (page 50 of paper book) Notice

RAM KISHORE RATHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 53(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 308/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Kishore Rathore, Vs. Acit, Circle-53(1), C/O M/S Rra Taxindia New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Pan:Aaapr4260P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

house property, but the assessee has every right to challenge proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act. Now it is well-settled principle by different judicial pronouncements that there cannot be any 'estoppel' against the statutory provisions. Admittedly, in this case, the mandate of section 147 is not fulfilled for the reasons that the Assessing

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SEEMA SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act resulting into the net addition of Rs. 14,07,474/- (Rs. 64,64,112/-; add maintenance charges (as per para 8v of the Lease Deed) Rs. 20,10,672/- and total rent received comes to Rs. 8474784/- and less deduction u/s. 24(a) Rs. 25,42,435) and net income from house

AMIT DHINGRA,DELHI vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 154 proceedings, which was rejected by the ld. CIT(A). So far as disallowance of 50% loss is concerned, it was argued that although the property was in joint name with his wife but the same was for succession purpose and the entire consideration was paid by the assessee himself out of sale proceeds of residential house

AMIT DHINGRA,DELHI vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 154 proceedings, which was rejected by the ld. CIT(A). So far as disallowance of 50% loss is concerned, it was argued that although the property was in joint name with his wife but the same was for succession purpose and the entire consideration was paid by the assessee himself out of sale proceeds of residential house

AMAL ALLANA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

154 of the Act. Accordingly, the order has been rectified by the AO and the grievance against these grounds no longer survived. In view of these facts the ground number 1 and 3 are dismissed as not pressed. In ground No.2, the appellant has impugned the 6.1.2 addition made by the AO of Rs. 12,60,000/- as income from

MRS. KUSUM LATA JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Acit, Central Circle-12, New Mrs. Kusum Lata Jain, G-19, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaipj1375K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. M.P. Rastogi & P.N. Shastri, Advocates Respondent By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 15/06/2012 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxxi, New Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit-(A)’] For Assessment Year 2007-08 Raising Following Grounds:

section 23 of the income tax act. However the AO has used an 10 estimate on rent of Rs. 200/'- sft. pm with no documentary evidence or an instance of a property fetching such a rental. The averment of the AR that such rents are not commanded even by centrally air- conditioned buildings in established commercial areas such a Connaught

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

154 ITO 755 (Chennai - Trib.) While determining 'income' of assessee-trust and its 'application of income' for purpose of claiming exemption under section 11 (1)(a), provisions of Chapter-IV i.e. sections 22 to 27 applicable for computing income chargeable to tax under head 'income from house property

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

154 ITO 755 (Chennai - Trib.) While determining 'income' of assessee-trust and its 'application of income' for purpose of claiming exemption under section 11 (1)(a), provisions of Chapter-IV i.e. sections 22 to 27 applicable for computing income chargeable to tax under head 'income from house property

RAMESH CHANDER BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 53(5), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house i.e. at Defense Colony Gurgaon and Malibu Town Gurgaon, although both were jointly owned with his wife Smt. Savita Bhasin. The reliance placed on the above judicial rulings brings out co-jointly owing a residential property cannot be treated as absolute ownership and thus, the deduction 12 ITA.No.161/Del./2020 Smt. Savita Bhasin L.R. of (wife) Shri Ramesh Chander

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

House Property’, after allowing statutory deductions under section 24 of the Act. ITA Nos. 6413 & 6414/Del/15 AY:2009-10/2011-12 ITA Nos. 6767 & 6766/Del/15 AY:2010-11 Ambience Developers and Infrastructure P Ltd./Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt.Ltd. 13.6. Accordingly ground No. 1-5 stands dismissed. 14. Ground No. 6 Ld.AO observed that, assessee made investment of Rs.21

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

House Property’, after allowing statutory deductions under section 24 of the Act. ITA Nos. 6413 & 6414/Del/15 AY:2009-10/2011-12 ITA Nos. 6767 & 6766/Del/15 AY:2010-11 Ambience Developers and Infrastructure P Ltd./Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt.Ltd. 13.6. Accordingly ground No. 1-5 stands dismissed. 14. Ground No. 6 Ld.AO observed that, assessee made investment of Rs.21

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

House Property’, after allowing statutory deductions under section 24 of the Act. ITA Nos. 6413 & 6414/Del/15 AY:2009-10/2011-12 ITA Nos. 6767 & 6766/Del/15 AY:2010-11 Ambience Developers and Infrastructure P Ltd./Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt.Ltd. 13.6. Accordingly ground No. 1-5 stands dismissed. 14. Ground No. 6 Ld.AO observed that, assessee made investment of Rs.21

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

House Property’, after allowing statutory deductions under section 24 of the Act. ITA Nos. 6413 & 6414/Del/15 AY:2009-10/2011-12 ITA Nos. 6767 & 6766/Del/15 AY:2010-11 Ambience Developers and Infrastructure P Ltd./Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt.Ltd. 13.6. Accordingly ground No. 1-5 stands dismissed. 14. Ground No. 6 Ld.AO observed that, assessee made investment of Rs.21

USHA BHARDWAJ (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF RAVINDER NATH BHARDWAJ),NOIDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.4567/Del./2024, A.Y. 2012-13 Usha Bhardwaj Income Tax Officer, (Legal Representative Of Ward 5(3)(1), Ravinder Nath Bhardwaj) Vs. Income Tax Office, C-117, Sector 72, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Up Gautam Budh Nagar, Up Pan: Aaapb1085C (Appellant) (Respondent)

property as per the sale deed and the amount is equally divided amongst them. Hence, the action of the AO is illegal, bad in law and contrary to the record. The mistake should have been rectified under Section 154 of the Act. 2 Usha Bhardwaj 7. That the evidence filed and materials available on record have not been properly construed