DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM vs. DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD., GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. GALGOTIA BOOKS & DEPARTMENT STORE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are allowed

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

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

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

MRS. RASHMI DHARIWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 11 and 12 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirashmi Dhariwal, Vs. Acit, Aashray Farms, Sub Po, Circle-23(1), Sawan Public School, Bhatti New Delhi Mines, Asola Village, New Delhi Pan:Aappd9702P (Appellant) (Respondent)

168 Taxman 59 holding that the notional interest on refundable security, if deposited, was neither taxable as profit or gain from business or profession under section 28(iv) of the Act or income from house property

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RAMINDER SINGH NARANG, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Raminder Singh Narang, Circle-38(1), C/O. Romana Herbal Care Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, E-43, Flatted Factory Complex, Jhandewalan, New Delhi Pan:Aacpn5607L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54 of the income tax act of Rs. 7073580/–. A further addition of Rs. 168,000/- was also made to the total income of the assessee considering the annual value of the property as assessee was owning two house

GURPREET SINGH DHILLON,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 24(a) having taxed in the current assessment year. 5. However, the ld. CIT (Appeals) disallowed interest of Rs.7,08,02,251/- paid on housing loan observing that interest claimed on the computation has already been allowed by the Assessing Officer and no further allowance is to be made in respect of interest paid. The ld. CIT (Appeals) also

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 22, of the Income-tax Act. 1961 Business income Chargeable as (Letting out of properties) Whether where in terms of memorandum of association, main object of assessee-company was to acquire properties and earn income by letting out same, said income was to be brought to tax as business income and not as income from house property - Held

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MULTIPLEX CAPITAL LTD

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

House no. 4465, New Khursipur, Bhilai, M.P. giving the details of the accident in which his cab was hit by the BMW car silver colour bearing no.HR26 AV 0007 and in the said accident his daughter, Mrs. Shama Shetty and the driver of the cab, Mr. Sanjay Gulati had died and he himself alongwith his wife Mrs. Veena Chopra

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.RITURAJ TEXTILE & GENERAL

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

house property and that for all practical purposes “owner is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right." Significantly, in arriving at the above conclusion, the Supreme Court distinguished the decision in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan (supra) on the ground that it was rendered in the context

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HARJEEV AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

house property and that for all practical purposes “owner is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right." Significantly, in arriving at the above conclusion, the Supreme Court distinguished the decision in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan (supra) on the ground that it was rendered in the context

RAJ DULARI BHASIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

house property and that for all practical purposes “owner is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right." Significantly, in arriving at the above conclusion, the Supreme Court distinguished the decision in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan (supra) on the ground that it was rendered in the context

ACIT, CIRCLE- 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. PLAZA PARTNERS, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2012-13

section 194-I of the Act and there is no change in facts and circumstances of the case as in the earlier years too the income from letting out has been returned and assessed under the head "income from house property". Before the Ld. CITA, the assessee has cited several decisions in support, out of which in the, decision

VARUN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-47(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

property at Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi on 28.11.2014 for sum of Rs. 6,10,50,000/-. While computing long- term capital gain, assessee had claimed exemption under section 54 of Rs. 1,58,00,000/- on acquisition of allotment of a residential plot No. Q-168, Kensington Park, Sector 133, Noida, DIS Gautam Budh Nagar, UP at Jaypee

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