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

section 22 are satisfied. Their Lordships further held that merely there is an entry in the object clause of the business showing a particular object, would not be the determinative factor to arrive at a conclusion that the income is to be treated as income from business or otherwise. It would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each

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

property. The said tax position was also duly accepted by\nthe department in the preceding and succeeding year. The assessee\nalready claimed standard deduction under Section 24(a) of the Act to the\ntune of Rs.57,81,40,137/- upon making suo motu disallowance of other\nexpenses amounting to Rs.13,68,61,227/- in regard to the house\nproperty income

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house in the context of proviso to Section 54 of the I.T. Act ?” He has submitted that the sale of land at Gurgaon and deposit of money in Capital Gain Scheme Account is in accordance with provisions of Section 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961, is not in dispute. He has submitted that assessee has entered into genuine transaction with

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SINOCHEM INDIA CO. PVT. LTD.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

164 Cr PC should be kept out of Crl.A.768/2018 Page 29 of 40 reckoning for the purposes of the order on charge will be decided by the trial Court, in light of what might transpire hereafter, and independent of the above observations of this Court. It will be open to both parties to again independently make submissions on this aspect

ASHUTOSH GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2013-14

house property” Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.2,75,520 made in the assessment order. 11 16. The last and ground no.5 of grounds of appeal of the assessee is in respect of enhancing the income by the learned CIT (Appeals) on account of loss on sale of land. We observe from the learned

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

property for the year under consideration, we dismiss the same. iii). iii). iii). iii). CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 123 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

property for the year under consideration, we dismiss the same. iii). iii). iii). iii). CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 123 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat

M/S. MISSION VIEJO AGRO PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4236/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Mission Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 48, Friends Colony, Central Circle-23, New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1160C Assessee By : Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Impugned Assessment Order Passed Under Sections 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Without Jurisdiction, Illegal & Bad In Law Since The Prerequisite Conditions For Initiating Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Not Fulfilled In The Present Case. 2. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Alleged Fair Rental Value At Rs.11,77,528/- & Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.11,77,528/- Under The Head Income From House Property. 3. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.7,00,000/- Received From M/S 2 Mission Viejo Estate Pvt. Ltd. Golden Techno Build Pvt. Ltd. As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. 4. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Aforesaid Addition Of Rs.7 Lacs Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Discharged Its Onus In Terms Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Ground No. 1 Is Not Pressed, Therefore, The Same Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

section 23 of the Act, the sum for which the property of the assessee company at 48, friends Colony East, New Delhi, might reasonably be expected to be let out was Rs. 11,77,528/- (41,69,718 x 28.24%) and this amount should have been shown by the assessee as its income from house property 5 Mission Viejo Estate

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)

164 ITR 664 (Cal.) (d) Aberdeen-Claims-Administration-Inc-1.[2016] 65 taxmann.com 246 (AAR) (e) Bhojison Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO: [2018] 173 ITD 436 (Ahm Trib) (f) Popular Estate Management v. DCIT: ITA No. 2703/Del/2017 (Ahd) (g) ITO vs. Ganeshsagar Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.: [2022] 135 taxmann.com 313 (Ahm Trib.) (h) Chheda Housing Development Corpn. Vs. ACIT

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

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

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

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

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

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

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A). On consideration of ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 18 the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A). On consideration of ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 18 the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A). On consideration of ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 18 the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception