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)

section 54 to 54F as submitted by the assessee before him. He further submitted that Rohini property was mere a purchase of open plot admeasuring 332.50 sq mtrs. The assessee merely incurred expenditure of Rs. 6 lakhs on the above property. The details of construction cost Rs. 6 lakhs, which is stated by the assessee being the construction cost

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

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

house\nproperty and income from other sources. Ld. AR submits that aforesaid judgment of\nHon'ble Supreme Court has been discussed and distinguished by the apex court in\nthe case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, Central-III, Tamil\nNadu [2015] 56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconcluded that the question of identifying the income

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

house properties, in view of fact that one residential property was co-jointly owned in name of assessee and his wife and he could not be treated as 'absolute owner' of said property, deduction under section 54F could not be denied to him. We note that Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

house properties, in view of fact that one residential property was co-jointly owned in name of assessee and his wife and he could not be treated as 'absolute owner' of said property, deduction under section 54F could not be denied to him. We note that Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CETRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

house\nproperty and income from other sources. Ld. AR submits that aforesaid judgment of\nHon'ble Supreme Court has been discussed and distinguished by the apex court in\nthe case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, Central-III, Tamil\nNadu [2015] 56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconcluded that the question of identifying the income

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

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

house\nproperty and income from other sources. Ld. AR submits that aforesaid judgment of\nHon'ble Supreme Court has been discussed and distinguished by the apex court in\nthe case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, Central-III, Tamil\nNadu [2015] 56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconcluded that the question of identifying the income

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

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

192 (1A) to honour the agreement with the employee, Parliament could not have intended its inclusion in any other form, even for the purpose of deduction at source. Doing so would defeat the intent behind Section 10 (10CC). This court, therefore, answers the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. 6: Assessability of TDS refunds

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

192 (1A) to honour the agreement with the employee, Parliament could not have intended its inclusion in any other form, even for the purpose of deduction at source. Doing so would defeat the intent behind Section 10 (10CC). This court, therefore, answers the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. 6: Assessability of TDS refunds

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

192 (1A) to honour the agreement with the employee, Parliament could not have intended its inclusion in any other form, even for the purpose of deduction at source. Doing so would defeat the intent behind Section 10 (10CC). This court, therefore, answers the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. 6: Assessability of TDS refunds

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

192/-. The certificates were also annexed to the said letter justifying the claim made by the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, without acknowledging the revised claim of TDS made by the assessee. Further, vide letter dated 29.01.2007 assessee also filed rectification application requesting to give effect to the aforesaid TDS claimed

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

192/-. The certificates were also annexed to the said letter justifying the claim made by the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, without acknowledging the revised claim of TDS made by the assessee. Further, vide letter dated 29.01.2007 assessee also filed rectification application requesting to give effect to the aforesaid TDS claimed

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

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

192/-. The certificates were also annexed to the said letter justifying the claim made by the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, without acknowledging the revised claim of TDS made by the assessee. Further, vide letter dated 29.01.2007 assessee also filed rectification application requesting to give effect to the aforesaid TDS claimed

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

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

192/-. The certificates were also annexed to the said letter justifying the claim made by the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, without acknowledging the revised claim of TDS made by the assessee. Further, vide letter dated 29.01.2007 assessee also filed rectification application requesting to give effect to the aforesaid TDS claimed

SERCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

property rights and other commercial or marketing intangibles owned by the group company and provides a diverse range of services that would vary in complexity, depth of analysis and time involved. There is no fixed correlation between brand and margins. A case in point is Tata Elxl, carrying the same Tata brand name as TCSe-Serve the comparable, but Tata

A.B. HOTELS LTD. (RADISSON HOTEL),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

house property and allow consequential deduction on account of municipal tax and standard deduction u/s 24. The ground raised by the assessed is accordingly allowed. 1. The only effective ground raised by the assessee reads as under : “The learned CIT(Appeals)-II, New Delhi has erred on fact in confirming the action of DCIT, CC-3, New Delhi

A.B. HOTELS LTD. (RADISSON HOTEL),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

house property and allow consequential deduction on account of municipal tax and standard deduction u/s 24. The ground raised by the assessed is accordingly allowed. 1. The only effective ground raised by the assessee reads as under : “The learned CIT(Appeals)-II, New Delhi has erred on fact in confirming the action of DCIT, CC-3, New Delhi

A.B. HOTELS LTD. (RADISSON HOTEL),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

house property and allow consequential deduction on account of municipal tax and standard deduction u/s 24. The ground raised by the assessed is accordingly allowed. 1. The only effective ground raised by the assessee reads as under : “The learned CIT(Appeals)-II, New Delhi has erred on fact in confirming the action of DCIT, CC-3, New Delhi

BOEING INDIA PVT. LTD (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS BOEING INTL. CORP. INDIA PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

house administration support division, the appellant has 58 employees out of which only 6 are expatriate employees. This division renders travel logistics, finance and accounting support etc and the qualifications and role show that such expatriate employees cannot make available any knowledge. Further reliance was placed on the decision of the co- ordinate bench in the case