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

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

house property. The CBDT Circular No. 1 of 2015 dated 21.01.2015 explains that the amendment applies in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. Consequently, the amendment will not apply to the case of the assessee which pertains to AY 2012-13. 22. It may be stated that the Ld. AO did not record any finding

WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

section 133(6) of the Act was duly served upon the creditor, it is evident that the party was genuine. Only because no reply was received by the Ld. AO, the addition is not correct and cited the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC). It was asserted that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING CO. LTD.

The Appeals are disposed of in the above terms without any order on costs

Housing and Land Development Trust (supra), the assessee, incorporated with the object of buying and developing landed properties and promoting and developing markets, purchased land in Calcutta and set up a market. The question was whether the income realized from the tenants of those shops taxable as "business income" under section 10 of the Income-tax Act or “income from

DCIT CIRCLE-52(1), INCOME TAX vs. PRANAV GUPTA, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roydcit, Cir-52(1) Vs. Sh. Pranav Gupta, 1405, 14Th Floor, E-2, Legal Heir Of Late Sh. Vijay Block, Civic Centre, Kumar Gupta, 11, Darya Delhi- 110002 Ganj, New Delhi- 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipg0797N Appellant .. Respondent

house property lying and situated at C169 Greater Kailash, New Delhi was disclosed. The computation of income declared a sale consideration of 3 DCIT v. Pranav Gupta A.Y. 2009-10 Rs.275,00,000/- from said transaction. The original assessee Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta passed away on 02.10.2015 but thereafter a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

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

House Property except the portion of the property used by the owner of the property for the purposes of its own business or profession, the profit of which are chargeable to income tax. (b) The taxability of the property u/s 22 is that the said property shall not be in use of business of the assessee itself, the profit

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

House Property except the portion of the property used by the owner of the property for the purposes of its own business or profession, the profit of which are chargeable to income tax. (b) The taxability of the property u/s 22 is that the said property shall not be in use of business of the assessee itself, the profit

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

House Property except the portion of the property used by the owner of the property for the purposes of its own business or profession, the profit of which are chargeable to income tax. (b) The taxability of the property u/s 22 is that the said property shall not be in use of business of the assessee itself, the profit

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

House Property except the portion of the property used by the owner of the property for the purposes of its own business or profession, the profit of which are chargeable to income tax. (b) The taxability of the property u/s 22 is that the said property shall not be in use of business of the assessee itself, the profit

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

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

House Property except the portion of the property used by the owner of the property for the purposes of its own business or profession, the profit of which are chargeable to income tax. (b) The taxability of the property u/s 22 is that the said property shall not be in use of business of the assessee itself, the profit

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

house property as business income (ground 7 to 7.2); vi) Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 5,27,339/- being expenditure (8 to 8.1); vii) Ground no. 9 and 10 relates to disallowance u/s 40A (3) and u/s 41, which has not been pressed before us. viii) Disallowance of Rs. 12,37,07,018/- u/s 14A. 11. The facts in brief

M/S. UNITECH LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

house property as business income (ground 7 to 7.2); vi) Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 5,27,339/- being expenditure (8 to 8.1); vii) Ground no. 9 and 10 relates to disallowance u/s 40A (3) and u/s 41, which has not been pressed before us. viii) Disallowance of Rs. 12,37,07,018/- u/s 14A. 11. The facts in brief

NANDLAL PRITAMDAS KISHNANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-61(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2009-10 Nandlal Pritamdas Kishnani Vs Ito, 201, C-15, Acharya Niketan, Ward-61(2), Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi. New Delhi 110091. Pan: Aelpk3362G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Kirti Bindal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Anshul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

Section 50C as inserted by Finance Act 2016 w.e.f 01.04.2017, certainly applies to the present facts and circumstances as the agreement was executed prior to the amendment but with intention to seal the deal and transaction of payment of earnest money of Rs. Ten Lac, was by way of cheques. The Bank account statements filed in PB at page

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

house property’. The AO found no error in the details so filed nor Ld. PCIT has pointed out any error or any occasion where the tax could not be less charged therefore, it cannot be held that the order is pre-judicial to the interest of Revenue or erroneous and accordingly, the direction of Ld.PCIT to make verifications

RAJ KUMAR CHAWLA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuvs Raj Kumar Chawla Acit A-7, Nirman Vihar, Central Circle-Ix Delhi. New Delhi. Aalpc1209J Appellant Respondent

house property Rs. 4,36,036/-; 2. Addition on account of un-explained loan of Rs. 2,29,73,630/-; 3. Addition on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) on protective basis Rs. 46,588/-. 3. The assessee challenged the above additions before the Ld. CIT(A) and raised various grounds of appeal. The assessee also filed application

M/S. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

house property’ as per provisions of law. Ground No. 3 is, accordingly, allowed. 17. Ground No. 4 relates to MAT credit claimed amounting to Rs. 72,30,482/-. 18. We are of the considered opinion that MAT credit has to be allowed to the assessee as per the provisions of law and after considering the provisions and the assessment history

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

house property’ as per provisions of law. Ground No. 3 is, accordingly, allowed. 17. Ground No. 4 relates to MAT credit claimed amounting to Rs. 72,30,482/-. 18. We are of the considered opinion that MAT credit has to be allowed to the assessee as per the provisions of law and after considering the provisions and the assessment history