MRS. SAMKIKSHA MAHAJAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm Ita No. 3117/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Mrs. Samiksha Mahajan, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2, Avenue Cassia, Westend Tax, Central Circle-22, Greens, Rajokari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akdpm4000H Ita No. 3118/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Mrs. Anita Rani, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2, Avenue Cassia, Westend Tax, Central Circle-22, Greens, Rajokari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepr2569P Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sambhav Rastogi Revenue By : Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2016

section 24(b) are not applicable if the loan funds are used in purchasing the land and such funds are not used for construction of the property on that land. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as facts of the case in rejecting the claim of the interest on house loan of Rs.1

MRS. ANITA RANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm Ita No. 3117/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Mrs. Samiksha Mahajan, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2, Avenue Cassia, Westend Tax, Central Circle-22, Greens, Rajokari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akdpm4000H Ita No. 3118/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Mrs. Anita Rani, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2, Avenue Cassia, Westend Tax, Central Circle-22, Greens, Rajokari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepr2569P Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sambhav Rastogi Revenue By : Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2016

section 24(b) are not applicable if the loan funds are used in purchasing the land and such funds are not used for construction of the property on that land. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as facts of the case in rejecting the claim of the interest on house loan of Rs.1

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

house property income, details whereof is appearing at page 58 of the paper book filed before us. In the event, the assessee is directed to reclassify the rent receipts as business income, the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction of the above expenses along with an additional depreciation claim of Rs.60,19,18,398/- being 10% of the building

SHRI M M CREATIONS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai & M. M. Creations Acit T-481A, Baljeet Nagar Circle-24(1), Behind Patel Nagar Police Station New Delhi Vs. New Delhi. Pan : Aaefm9802A (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property, as it does not involve any commercial activity. In the paper book Ld. AR placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Kayram Hotels Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2015) 373 ITR 494 and decision Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd., reported

AJAY KUMAR SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

HOUSE PROPERTY 157528 TAX ON Rs.110000 Nil TAX ON RS.4000(150000-110000) @ 10% 4000 TAX ON RS.7030(157300150000) @20% 1406 TAX ON Rs.157030 5406 5406 ADD EDUCATION CESS @ 2% 108 5414 ADD SECONDARY & HIGHER EDU.CESS @ 1% 54 5568 ADD INTEREST PAYABLE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A 440 INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B 660 INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234C 202 1302 6870 LESS SELF

PRAMOD KUMAR SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

HOUSE PROPERTY 157528 TAX ON Rs.110000 Nil TAX ON RS.4000(150000-110000) @ 10% 4000 TAX ON RS.7030(157300150000) @20% 1406 TAX ON Rs.157030 5406 5406 ADD EDUCATION CESS @ 2% 108 5414 ADD SECONDARY & HIGHER EDU.CESS @ 1% 54 5568 ADD INTEREST PAYABLE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A 440 INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B 660 INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234C 202 1302 6870 LESS SELF

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

properties claimed as being vacant farm lands needs verification by the AO for ascertaining the correctness of the claim that no house/building was constructed on such lands. Thus the issue is hereby, restored to AO. If it is found true that during the relevant time, no house property/commercial space were constructed thereon. No addition would be called for. Thus, Ground

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

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

property held under Trust and is not income. He pointed out that if indeed voluntary contributions received by a political party would have been income per se under Section 2(24) of the Act, then clearly there would not have been any need to enact Section ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

property held under Trust and is not income. He pointed out that if indeed voluntary contributions received by a political party would have been income per se under Section 2(24) of the Act, then clearly there would not have been any need to enact Section 2016:DHC:2463-DB ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

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

property held under Trust and is not income. He pointed out that if indeed voluntary contributions received by a political party would have been income per se under Section 2(24) of the Act, then clearly there would not have been any need to enact Section ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page

TEXACO OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner as indicated

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri L. P. Sahu

section 14A were not applicable to the instant case.” Ground No. 1 & 2. 3. Apropos these grounds of appeal, we have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant materials placed on record before us. The Ld. Assessee’s Representative challenging the action of the A.O and ld. CIT(A) submitted that the A.O has grossly erred

M/S. H.L. MALHOTRA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2011-12 H.L. Malhotra & Company Pvt. Dcit Ltd. Circle-12(1) 506, Dakha House, Pusa Lane, New Delhi. 18/17, W.E.A., Karol Bagh Vs. New Delhi – 110 005 Pan Aaach0836J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 30 to 37 of the l.T. Act. All expenses are to be allowed to either keep the corporate status alive or incurred for the purpose of business during the period of lull. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) after examining all the expenses has restricted the disallowance to the tune of Rs. 8,68,705/- and given the relief

ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAHUL NATH, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

house. The assessee, to support this claim, submitted bank statement vide reply dated 10th January, 2014 and also submitted ledger accounts of land and building vide reply dated 25th February, 2014 before the Assessing Officer. The assessee made this claim under Section 54F of the Act which was denied by the Assessing Officer for the reason that the assessee failed

RAHUL NATH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

house. The assessee, to support this claim, submitted bank statement vide reply dated 10th January, 2014 and also submitted ledger accounts of land and building vide reply dated 25th February, 2014 before the Assessing Officer. The assessee made this claim under Section 54F of the Act which was denied by the Assessing Officer for the reason that the assessee failed

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 22 of the Act are satisfied. Moreover, it has also been pointed out by the Ld. Counsel that all throughout in the earlier years assessee has been showing rental income under the head 'income from house property' which has been accepted by the revenue under the scrutiny proceedings in various years. The details of earlier assessment accepting the rental