M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 9), even though the company may be doing extensive business otherwise. But a company formed with the specific object of acquiring properties not with the view to leasing them as property but to selling them or turning them to account even by way of leasing them out as an integral part of its business, cannot be said to treat

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

SELECT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

3, he pointed out that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, wherever there is an income from leasing out of premises and collecting rent, normally such an income is to be treated as income from house property, if the provisions of section 22 are satisfied. Their Lordships further held that merely there is an entry in the object clause

M/S DENA BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result appeals filed by the appellant are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

156 was issued and penalty proceedings under section 271-C of the Act were directed to be initiated separately. Feeling aggrieved, the Bank filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, after examination of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 19764 held that the NOIDA was a corporation

M/S STATE BANK OF PATIALA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result appeals filed by the appellant are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

156 was issued and penalty proceedings under section 271-C of the Act were directed to be initiated separately. Feeling aggrieved, the Bank filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, after examination of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 19764 held that the NOIDA was a corporation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, DELHI vs. M/S BIO-RAD LABORATORIES (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 12 of NCTE Act, 1993 it shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of Teacher Education.  There are approximately 430 applications for various Teacher Education Programmes, other than Diploma level courses, pending at different stages in the RCs.  NEP 2020 has brought

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

house property is correct. Otherwise, in the event direction\nissued by the Ld. PCIT, if, at all, be accepted then the claim of\ndepreciation of the assessee to the tune of Rs.60.39 crores has to be\naccepted and the same would be a loss of tax to the revenue and thus, in\nfact, on the contrary prejudicial to the interest

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. M/S K.R. PULP & PAPERS LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

Housing Development Finance D-5/3111, 3-' floor, Awadh 27 company Ltd. Complex, Laxminagar, Delhi 4/77,1st floor, Ramesh Nagar, 28 Logitufa solutions (P) New Delhi-110 015 30000 1,500,000 1,200,000 Ltd 6 ITA.No.5064/Del./2017 M/s. K.R. Pulp and Papers Ltd., New Delhi. Micro Mac Computers (P) C-230, LIG Flat

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

3 of\nthe above list is reproduced herein below:\nPage 21\nSr. No. 1553\nDated. 1412192\nCertified that under Section 42 of the Indian Stampact, 1889\nthat stamp duty of the amount of Rs.120,000%-\n(Rupees one Les, twenty thousand only.\nonly)\nhas been levied on this document and read by Bir Snips bal\nNathupar el. mir singh

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

156 ITR 323 (SC). D. Moreover in CIT vs Bharati C Kothari (2000) 244ITR 352 In the instant case, since the assessee entered into an agreement for construction of a bare shell of a house by periodic payment of installments and he had to carry the internal fit-outs to make it live- able as per Annexure

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

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

156 ITR 323 (SC). D. Moreover in CIT vs Bharati C Kothari (2000) 244ITR 352 In the instant case, since the assessee entered into an agreement for construction of a bare shell of a house by periodic payment of installments and he had to carry the internal fit-outs to make it live- able as per Annexure

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

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

156 ITR 323 (SC). D. Moreover in CIT vs Bharati C Kothari (2000) 244ITR 352 In the instant case, since the assessee entered into an agreement for construction of a bare shell of a house by periodic payment of installments and he had to carry the internal fit-outs to make it live- able as per Annexure

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

property of Permanent Establishment), 13(3) (Capital gain on ships and aircrafts), 13(3A) (Capital gain on shares acquired after 1 April 2017), 13(3B) (Capital gain on shares between 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2019), will be taxable only in the country in which alienator is a resident. Therefore, the amended Article 13(4) effectively provides that

DIRECTOR OF NCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

3) (iii) (f) of the Act by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Therefore, provisions of Section 194-I of the Act are inapplicable to NoidaAuthority. 4. The income tax authorities ignored the explanations provided and issued notices of demand under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act treating the petitioner company as assessee-in-default for non-deduction

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said