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

SHUMA KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee failed on all five grounds raised before us

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishuma Kalra, Vs. Pr. Cit-12, A-28, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaipk8142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

house. He showed his inability. It proves that claim of deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act is not sustainable in law. (ii) Deemed Rental income. Unitech World. Gurgaon Property:- AO also did not raise any issue on what happened to property after being vacated by Bharti Axa (Gurgaon Property) & why deemed rental income was not offered

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. AJAY GOEL, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

property is considered, it\nwould continue to be owned by co-owners. Joint ownership is different from absolute\nownership. In the case of residential unit, none of the co-owners can claim that he is\nthe owner of residential house. Ownership of a residential house, in our opinion, means\nownership to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, where a house

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –V vs. KAPIL NAGPAL

property at Gadaipur. It was clear that the Assessee had purchased 85% share in Gadaipur house on 10th April 2007, thus becoming the full owner of the said house. It is accordingly claimed on the sale of share, i.e., 8th November 2006 the Assessee did not have the full ownership of the residential house at Gadaipur and was only

ASHOK J THAPAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shrianubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Ashok J. Thapar Huf Vs. Dcit, A-3, Pamposh Enclave, Circle-62(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aadha7372L (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Property. Reliance is placed on the following judgments to support the legal propositions canvassed Smarts (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, High court of Delhi, 166 taxman 53; Akola Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, in ITA No. 6481/Mum/2013 order dated 01.03.2017, ITAT Mumbai Bench; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Vegetable Products Ltd., 88 ITR 0192 (SC). 6. In regard

SNEH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

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

section 54F of the Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in impugned order dated 09.08.2024. Hence the present appeal. The case of the assessee is that she sold shares on 20.12.2012 and deposited capital gain in bank account under capital gain scheme and further she started construction of a residential property. For this purpose, she purchased a residential

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MODI RUBBER LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/S Modi Rubber Ltd Circle – 5(1) 4 – 7C, Dda Shopping Centre New Delhi New Friends Colony New Delhi Pan : Aaacm 2062 R [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr

house property? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to Rs. 2,18,304/- out of Rs. 39,14,000/- is giving relief of Rs. 36,95,625/- to the assessee on adhoc basis. 4. That the order

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MANGU RAM BANSAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. C.M.Garg, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Ita No. 4929/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04

166 Taxman 65(SC). ii) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the asset under consideration as partly residential and partly commercial, thus being eligible for deduction u/s 54F, despite the fact that the original addition has been upheld by Ld. CIT(A) and Hon’ble ITAT also has set aside the matter to the file

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

166/- and (iv) Disallowance u/s 14A of INR 27,96,33,237/-. 4. Against such order, an appeal was filed by assessee which is still pending for adjudication. In the meantime, Ld. PCIT observed that the order so passed u/s 143(3) is erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the Revenue and issued a show cause notice

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

166-260 of PB-3 respectively in the paper book filed by the assessee. The orders of the Tribunal in respect of the appeal filed by the revenue in the case of father and mother of the assessee were placed at pages 44-53 and 54-65 respectively in the PB-2. 9. The Ld. AR further submitted that

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

166-260 of PB-3 respectively in the paper book filed by the assessee. The orders of the Tribunal in respect of the appeal filed by the revenue in the case of father and mother of the assessee were placed at pages 44-53 and 54-65 respectively in the PB-2. 9. The Ld. AR further submitted that

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

166-260 of PB-3 respectively in the paper book filed by the assessee. The orders of the Tribunal in respect of the appeal filed by the revenue in the case of father and mother of the assessee were placed at pages 44-53 and 54-65 respectively in the PB-2. 9. The Ld. AR further submitted that

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

166-260 of PB-3 respectively in the paper book filed by the assessee. The orders of the Tribunal in respect of the appeal filed by the revenue in the case of father and mother of the assessee were placed at pages 44-53 and 54-65 respectively in the PB-2. 9. The Ld. AR further submitted that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S UBEROI SONS MACHINES LTD.

Section 23 of the Act explains “annual letting value,” for purposes, of income from house property. The said provision reads as follows: 2012:DHC:5352-DB ITAs 166

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VI vs. M/S. UBEROI SONS (MACHINES) LTD.

Section 23 of the Act explains “annual letting value,” for purposes, of income from house property. The said provision reads as follows: 2012:DHC:5352-DB ITAs 166

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. M/S. UBEROI SONS (MACHINES) LTD.

Section 23 of the Act explains “annual letting value,” for purposes, of income from house property. The said provision reads as follows: 2012:DHC:5352-DB ITAs 166