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

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

ANDREY ANDREEV,MUMBAI vs. CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-(03), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2002/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Andrey Andreev, Vs Cit(Intl. Taxation)-03, C/O Sushil Budhia Associates, New Delhi Ca, 1103, Level 11, Universal Majestic, Behind Rbk International School, Ghatkopar Mankhurd, Link Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400043 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpa5288P Assessee By : Sh. Y. K. Kapur, Adv. & Sh. Bhushan Kapur, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2022

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.07.2016 was passed 2 Andrey Andreev wherein deduction claim u/s 54 of Rs.4,86,22,366/- has been allowed resulting into refund of Rs.76,44,140/- owing to computation of the taxable capital gains as NIL. The computation of capital gains was as under: • Sale cost of the residential cost

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

properties claimed as being vacant farm lands needs verification by the AO for ascertaining the correctness of the claim that no house/building was constructed on such lands. Thus the issue is hereby, restored to AO. If it is found true that during the relevant time, no house property/commercial space were constructed thereon. No addition would be called for. Thus, Ground

KANTA,BHIWANI vs. ITO WARD-1, BHIWANI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2010-11 Smt. Kanta Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Kanta Brick Kiln Co., Ward-1, Vpo Kayla Bhiwani, Bhiwani Haryana – 127021 (Pan: Ceppk1186J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) and 142(1) dated 09.08.2017 alongwith detailed questionnaire were issued for 11.08.2017 requiring the assessee to furnish the necessary evidence of sources of investment, which have been complied with by the assessee and his counsel Shri ML Kataria, Advocate and Shri Umed Singh, son of the assessee. Necessary information, bank statements have been furnished and examined. After

CIT vs. FRANCIS WACZIARG

house property’, did not reduce the same amount of Rs.14,47,855/- from income declared by the assessee under the head ‘business from business and profession’. An application filed by the assessee under Section 154

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV

house property’, did not reduce the same amount of Rs.14,47,855/- from income declared by the assessee under the head ‘business from business and profession’. An application filed by the assessee under Section 154

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOPAL DASS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD.

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

housing project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of Assessee‟s business. 70. The Assessee‟s case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOPAL DASS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD.

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

housing project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of Assessee‟s business. 70. The Assessee‟s case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOPAL DASS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD.

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

housing project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of Assessee‟s business. 70. The Assessee‟s case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIII vs. GOPAL DASS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD.

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

housing project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of Assessee‟s business. 70. The Assessee‟s case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles

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

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

section 154 is 31.03.2021 and date of supreme Court 1097/Del/2023 order in checkmate services Private Limited v CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518 is 12.10.2022. 8. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the AO u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) and 143(1)making additions of Rs. 24,000/- in the house property

NAVNEET DUTTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 67(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

House Property was restricted to Rs.1,50,000/- as in case of Self Occupied Property and further ignored that the Tax Computation made by the assessee was on account of the said claim of loss. 6. The order of the CIT (A) and AO are bad in law and against the facts of the case.” 3. In this case

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Housing Development Corpn. Vs. ACIT: [2019] 179 ITD 154 (Mum Trib.) (i) ACIT vs Jackie Shroff: [2018] 172 ITD 425 (Mumbai) 12 (j) Satyam Food Specialties (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2015] 68 SOT 449 (Jaipur - Trib.) (k) Ishvakoo Grand Plaza v. DCIT: ITA No. 4537/Del/2017 (Del. Trib) (l) Ms. Padma Rao vs. CIT: [2024] 159 taxmann.com 30 (Del Trib

ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAHUL NATH, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

house. The assessee, to support this claim, submitted bank statement vide reply dated 10th January, 2014 and also submitted ledger accounts of land and building vide reply dated 25th February, 2014 before the Assessing Officer. The assessee made this claim under Section 54F of the Act which was denied by the Assessing Officer for the reason that the assessee failed

RAHUL NATH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

house. The assessee, to support this claim, submitted bank statement vide reply dated 10th January, 2014 and also submitted ledger accounts of land and building vide reply dated 25th February, 2014 before the Assessing Officer. The assessee made this claim under Section 54F of the Act which was denied by the Assessing Officer for the reason that the assessee failed

REEVA SOOD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 31(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

section 154. Thus, the order of the AO is beyond the scope of purview of rectification u/s 154 as there was no mistake apparent from record. On merits, he submitted that the assessee had sold the property during the relevant AY 2013-14 and in the previous 4 year i.e. July 2012, the assessee had entered into agreement for sale

ACIT CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ansal Housing Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Ansal Circle-2(2), Housing & Construction Ltd.), New Delhi 606, 6Th Floor, Indra Prakash, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca0377R (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Ansal Housing & Circle-2(2), Construction Ltd., New Delhi 15, Ugf, Indraprakash Building, 21 Barakhamba, Cp, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca0377R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv. Sh. Jitendra Bhati, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

property” under section 22 of the Act. Both the parties are very much ad idem that the instant issue is no more res integra in the assessee’s case as the hon’ble jurisdiction high court in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd. (2013) 213 Taxman 143(Del) has already decided the same in the department