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

Section 54 (1) of the act the assessee is only entitled to the deduction of one residential house property whereas the assessee has claimed deduction on more than one house property, which is not admissible. He further submitted that assessee has not purchased one residential unit, which is combined in any manner. He submitted that assessee has purchased one flat

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

Section 54 (1) of the act the assessee is only entitled to the deduction of one residential house property whereas the assessee has claimed deduction on more than one house property, which is not admissible. He further submitted that assessee has not purchased one residential unit, which is combined in any manner. He submitted that assessee has purchased one flat

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

house property' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

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

house property' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

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

house property' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

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

house property' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

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

house property' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

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

house property' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

PAVEL GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 63(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3606/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Pavel Garg, Vs Acit, Dtj-120, 1St Floor, Jasola Tower-B, Circle-63(1), Jasola, New Delhi-110025 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpg2923R Assessee By : Sh. S.B. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2022

house property remaining vacant. Section 24(1)(ix) was deleted from statute vide Finance Act, 2001 and simultaneously section 23(1)(c) was inserted. Prior to deletion, section 24(1)(ix) read as - “where the property is let and was vacant during a part of the year, that part of the annual value 6 Pavel Garg which is proportionate

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

1).” This, like Section 10 (10CC) was inserted in 2002; so also was Section 195A. 50. The Tribunal has in the present cases, held that tax paid by the employer on behalf of the employee is a non-monetary perquisite. In other words, taxes paid by the employer can be added only once in the salary of the employee. Thereafter

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

1).” This, like Section 10 (10CC) was inserted in 2002; so also was Section 195A. 50. The Tribunal has in the present cases, held that tax paid by the employer on behalf of the employee is a non-monetary perquisite. In other words, taxes paid by the employer can be added only once in the salary of the employee. Thereafter

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI CENTRAL III vs. MONI KUMAR SUBBA

17. It is on this basis that in the present case, the CIT (A) gave primacy to the rateable value of the property fixed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide its assessment order dated 31.12.1996 and on this basis, opined that the actual rent was more than the said rateable value and therefore, as per Section 23 (1

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

Housing Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center Delhi ; 441 ITR 285(del)  Devanshu Infin Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center Delhi ;284 Taxman 36  Ramprastha Buildwell (P.) Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center, Delhi; 283 Taxman 235 13  KRS Home Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre ;283 Taxman 413  Umkal Healthcare (P.) Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

17 to section 73. The Assessing Officer also imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of making a wrong claim for set off of share trading loss against normal income. Hon’ble Delhi High Court, however, held that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

17 to section 73. The Assessing Officer also imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of making a wrong claim for set off of share trading loss against normal income. Hon’ble Delhi High Court, however, held that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

17 to section 73. The Assessing Officer also imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of making a wrong claim for set off of share trading loss against normal income. Hon’ble Delhi High Court, however, held that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

17 to section 73. The Assessing Officer also imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of making a wrong claim for set off of share trading loss against normal income. Hon’ble Delhi High Court, however, held that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

17 to section 73. The Assessing Officer also imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of making a wrong claim for set off of share trading loss against normal income. Hon’ble Delhi High Court, however, held that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

17 to section 73. The Assessing Officer also imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of making a wrong claim for set off of share trading loss against normal income. Hon’ble Delhi High Court, however, held that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer