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

160 against the claim of the assessee of ₹ 7,710,000. With respect to the claim of the deduction u/s 54 of The Income Tax Act with respect to the flat at Mumbai and the cost of construction of residential house property at Delhi, the learned CIT – A held that amendment to Section

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

160 against the claim of the assessee of ₹ 7,710,000. With respect to the claim of the deduction u/s 54 of The Income Tax Act with respect to the flat at Mumbai and the cost of construction of residential house property at Delhi, the learned CIT – A held that amendment to Section

YASH SUNEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-42(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 54F is a beneficial provision for promoting construction of residential houses and has to be construed liberally. Kerala, Delhi, Allahabad, Calcutta and Hyderabad High Courts have taken a view that usage of the property has to be considered in determining whether it is a residential property or a commercial property and Madras High Court in C.H.KESVA RAO supra

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

House Property". That in the case of the appellant the L.D A.O has claimed the Residential Property at "New Friends Colony, New Delhi" to be owned by the appellant, though on facts the said property has been claimed as a "Self Occupied" property by the mother of the appellant in her return filed by her Legal heir. The copy

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

House Property". That in the case of the appellant the L.D A.O has claimed the Residential Property at "New Friends Colony, New Delhi" to be owned by the appellant, though on facts the said property has been claimed as a "Self Occupied" property by the mother of the appellant in her return filed by her Legal heir. The copy

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property was allotted to a taxpayer, it would be treated as a case of construction for the purpose of section 54. c) In Rajeev B Shah vs ITO (ITA No.262/Mum/2015 decided on 08.07.2016 by ITAT Mumbai), assessee sold a plot of land on 09.02.2010 for a consideration of T19,35,325/- and earned long term capital gain

NITIN GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 34(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Nitin Gupta, Vs. Ito, C-1/23, Ashok Vihar Phase-Ii, Ward-34(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aeapg4313C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2021 Order

160/-. After claiming deduction u/s 24 of the Act towards property tax of Rs.1,78,277/- and interest on loan and other expenses of Rs.10,83,495/-, the assessee declared net loss of Rs.1,49,612/- under the head ‘Income from house property.’ He submitted that the assessee had filed the return of income in a foreign country which

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

House property': • CIT vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. 296 ITR 661 (Guj.) • Shivsagar Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT: [2020] 185 ITD 684 (Delhi - Trib.) • Shree Balaji Ventures v. ITO in ITA No. 1914/Pun/2018 (Pune Trib.) • M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA Nos. 7288 and 7289/Mum/2017 (Mum - Trib.) • M/s Runwal Constructions v. ACIT

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

house property. In support, reliance is placed on Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC); Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC); PCIT vs. Sri Bharathi Warehousing Corporation (2017) 392 ITR 160 (AP). 6.8.4 Likewise, it is submitted that the amount of Rs. 13,43,161/- received by way of reimbursement

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1267/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1268/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1269/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Shri Sunil Kumar, Vs Acit, 14, Ashoka Avenue, Dlf Firms, Central Circle-26, Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aiapk9773A Assessee By : Ms. Shivangi Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2022

160/- Income from House property Rs.11,18,040/- 6. During the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the Id. AR filed the following written submission: “2. That the assessee along with his family started living in that property thereafter and the same was occupied till the year 1999. Because this house property was very old and the condition

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1267/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1268/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1269/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Shri Sunil Kumar, Vs Acit, 14, Ashoka Avenue, Dlf Firms, Central Circle-26, Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aiapk9773A Assessee By : Ms. Shivangi Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2022

160/- Income from House property Rs.11,18,040/- 6. During the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the Id. AR filed the following written submission: “2. That the assessee along with his family started living in that property thereafter and the same was occupied till the year 1999. Because this house property was very old and the condition

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1267/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1268/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1269/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Shri Sunil Kumar, Vs Acit, 14, Ashoka Avenue, Dlf Firms, Central Circle-26, Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aiapk9773A Assessee By : Ms. Shivangi Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2022

160/- Income from House property Rs.11,18,040/- 6. During the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the Id. AR filed the following written submission: “2. That the assessee along with his family started living in that property thereafter and the same was occupied till the year 1999. Because this house property was very old and the condition

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

160 or by any person on whose behalf or for whose benefit any income is receivable by the representative assessee (such person being hereafter in this sub-clause referred to as the “beneficiary”) and any sum paid by the representative assessee in respect of any obligation which, but for such payment, would have been payable by the beneficiary

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

160 or by any person on whose behalf or for whose benefit any income is receivable by the representative assessee (such person being hereafter in this sub-clause referred to as the “beneficiary”) and any sum paid by the representative assessee in respect of any obligation which, but for such payment, would have been payable by the beneficiary

ANJU AHUJA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CIRCLE 49(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

160/- for the Assessment Year 2017-18 in I.T.A. No.273/Del/2023 2 question. The return filed by the assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment to verify ‘Large Deduction / Exemption claimed under different provisions of the Act. The AO passed assessment order under Section 143(3) dated 15.11.2019 on being satisfied with the claim so made. 4. The case records pertaining

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

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

160 as against a returned income of INR 5,526,284,370. Part I - Transfer Pricing Matters 3. That on facts and in law, Hon'ble DRP and the Ld. TPO/ Ld. AO erred in making an adjustment of INR 1,569,263,482 to returned income of the Appellant in respect of international transaction pertaining to contract software development

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

160 ITR 557) is directly on\nthe points, wherein it was held that the cost of acquisition of a\ncapital asset within the meaning of Section 45 is not the cost\non the date on which the asset transferred became a capital\nasset. The incidence of levy under Section 45 is on the capital\ngains to be computed

PCIT-07, DELHI vs. M/S WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.

house property. In support, reliance is placed on Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC); Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC); PCIT vs. Sri Bharathi Warehousing Corporation (2017) 392 ITR 160 (AP). 6.8.4 Likewise, it is submitted that the amount of Rs.13,43,161/- received by way of reimbursement of expenses