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

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16 arises out of the order of CIT(A)-I, Gurgaon dated 31.03.2017, 13.09.2018, 19.03.2019. 2. Identical issues are involved in all these appeals, hence, they are taken up together and disposed

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

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16 arises out of the order of CIT(A)-I, Gurgaon dated 31.03.2017, 13.09.2018, 19.03.2019. 2. Identical issues are involved in all these appeals, hence, they are taken up together and disposed

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

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16 arises out of the order of CIT(A)-I, Gurgaon dated 31.03.2017, 13.09.2018, 19.03.2019. 2. Identical issues are involved in all these appeals, hence, they are taken up together and disposed

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

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16 arises out of the order of CIT(A)-I, Gurgaon dated 31.03.2017, 13.09.2018, 19.03.2019. 2. Identical issues are involved in all these appeals, hence, they are taken up together and disposed

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

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16 arises out of the order of CIT(A)-I, Gurgaon dated 31.03.2017, 13.09.2018, 19.03.2019. 2. Identical issues are involved in all these appeals, hence, they are taken up together and disposed

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

d) at the option of the employer, on behalf of such employee, (e) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 200 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956). 2013:DHC:3744-DB ITA 441/2003 and connected cases Page 22 A plain reading of the above provision would reveal that if the perquisite that is ―not provided for by way of monetary

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

d) at the option of the employer, on behalf of such employee, (e) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 200 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956). 2013:DHC:3744-DB ITA 441/2003 and connected cases Page 22 A plain reading of the above provision would reveal that if the perquisite that is ―not provided for by way of monetary

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF ASSETS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

d) Silokhera, Gurgaon - A Y 2008-09 - DU Limited. Therefore, the assessee company with respect to Chennai project is eligible to claim deduction for 10 consecutive years (out of the 15 Years), beginning Assessment Year 2007-08 upto 2021-22; with respect to other projects, beginning Assessment Year 2008-09 upto Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee since have opted

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF ASSETS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

d) Silokhera, Gurgaon - A Y 2008-09 - DU Limited. Therefore, the assessee company with respect to Chennai project is eligible to claim deduction for 10 consecutive years (out of the 15 Years), beginning Assessment Year 2007-08 upto 2021-22; with respect to other projects, beginning Assessment Year 2008-09 upto Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee since have opted

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF ASSETS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

d) Silokhera, Gurgaon - A Y 2008-09 - DU Limited. Therefore, the assessee company with respect to Chennai project is eligible to claim deduction for 10 consecutive years (out of the 15 Years), beginning Assessment Year 2007-08 upto 2021-22; with respect to other projects, beginning Assessment Year 2008-09 upto Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee since have opted

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

5 3)Less: Properties purchased before due date of filing return of income (Belated) 35,04,400 ____________ (allowed by AO upto payment made before due Date of filing original return i.e. 31.07.2012) 21,72,752 ______________ Addition as per Assessment order 11,49,116 _______________ ii) The details of properties purchased before filing belated return are as under:- Particulars of property Date

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

d) In not appreciating that unless the certificate of completion of construction of the property is obtained in respect of the properties lying vacant as stock-in-trade, the ALV of the properties is not liable to be taxed on notional basis as it is illegal to reside/occupy such property and hence could not have been

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

d) In not appreciating that unless the certificate of completion of construction of the property is obtained in respect of the properties lying vacant as stock-in-trade, the ALV of the properties is not liable to be taxed on notional basis as it is illegal to reside/occupy such property and hence could not have been

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

d) In not appreciating that unless the certificate of completion of construction of the property is obtained in respect of the properties lying vacant as stock-in-trade, the ALV of the properties is not liable to be taxed on notional basis as it is illegal to reside/occupy such property and hence could not have been

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

d 2011:DHC:1947-DB for which the property is let, as the period of twelve months bears to such period. Explanation 2 : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where a deduction in respect of any taxes referred to in the first proviso to this sub-section is allowed in determining the annual value

J S EXIM PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

house property and income from other sources’. For the Assessment Year 2013-14 in question, the assessee-company filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.4,94,44,640/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. As per paragraph 2 of the assessment order, the assessee has admittedly attended in the assessment

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

17 of 32 term capital assets and which shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The proviso stated that where the undertaking was held to be for not more than 36 months immediately preceding the date of transfer it would be deemed to be the capital gains arising from

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

17 of 32 term capital assets and which shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The proviso stated that where the undertaking was held to be for not more than 36 months immediately preceding the date of transfer it would be deemed to be the capital gains arising from

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

17 of 32 term capital assets and which shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The proviso stated that where the undertaking was held to be for not more than 36 months immediately preceding the date of transfer it would be deemed to be the capital gains arising from