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

193,760 u/s 54 of the act for Mumbai flat. 28. With respect to deduction u/s 54EC of the act, he held that spirit of Section 54EC would get defeated in case the interpretation as mentioned in the CBDT circular number 359 applicable for the Section 54D is not imported here for the Section 54EC as both the sections read

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

193,760 u/s 54 of the act for Mumbai flat. 28. With respect to deduction u/s 54EC of the act, he held that spirit of Section 54EC would get defeated in case the interpretation as mentioned in the CBDT circular number 359 applicable for the Section 54D is not imported here for the Section 54EC as both the sections read

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, 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

193,760 u/s 54 of the act for Mumbai flat. 28. With respect to deduction u/s 54EC of the act, he held that spirit of Section 54EC would get defeated in case the interpretation as mentioned in the CBDT circular number 359 applicable for the Section 54D is not imported here for the Section 54EC as both the sections read

DELTA COLONIZERS LTD.,NEWDELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE -7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed on ground no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2014-15

section 24(a) of the Act. 11. On further appeal, the CIT(A) unlike the order for the last Assessment Year i.e., A.Y. 2013-14, took a different stand and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in treating rental income from use of amenities as Income from Other Sources'. The CIT(A) distinguished the cases relied upon

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KENMORE VIKAS INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2012-13

section 14 and 22 of the I.T.Act, it would seem that any income from property (building and land appurtenant thereto) has to be taxed u/s 22. 6 DCIT vs. Kenmore Vikas India (P) Ltd. (ii) whether income earned from ownership vis-a-vis exploitation of the property in question can be treated as rental income, income from other sources

SH. ADARSH KUMAR SWARUP,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

193 ITR 770 held that there is no rule of law to the effect that the value determined for the purpose of stamp duty is the market value of the property. The market value of the property may be more or may be less. Therefore, in such circumstances, when a registered valuer has worked out the market value

NILE TECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

193 ITR 321 (SC) and following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Dadarkar & Associates (supra), we are of the considered view that rental income earned by the assessee from leasing out the property owned by it is chargeable to Income-tax 8 under the head ‘income from house property’ under section

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

193 (SC). 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating incidental and compulsory services such as power backup, security, lifts, etc., as "complex commercial support services without establishing independent or standalone business character, which are in fact inherent in property leasing activity and not constituting business

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. ASHOK KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6105/Del/2017: Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Ashok Kumar, Central Circle-26, 13, Ashoka Avenue, Dlf Farms, New Delhi-110055 Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepc1877D

section 269 UA, assessee become deemed owner of the property for the purpose of taxing him as the owner of the property. 2. The plain reading of law itself is very clear that if the property in question is taken on lease for more than 12 years the lessee shall be treated as deemed owner of the property and rental

M/S. TERA ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we allow ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishitera Estates Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, S-395, Greater Kailash, Parti-Ii, Range-16, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabct5729R (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 234B of the Act, which is not leviable on the facts of the appellant company.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of owners, colonizers, developers, promoters etc. The assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2006- 07 on 30.11.2006 of Rs. 3596255/-. The assessment

H.L. MALHOTRA AMD COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 143(3) and the Assessing Officer accepted this income declared under the head 'income from house property'. Even otherwise, the Assessing Officer or the learned CIT(A) in their orders have not given any reason how the rental income declared by the assessee is business income. We noted that, first of all, in view of the principle of consistency

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

property shall be NIL in accordance with the provisions of section 23 (1)( c) of the Act • CIT v. Joy Jacob: 151 ITR 19 (Ker.) • Premsudha Exports (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT: 110 ITD 158 (Mum. Trib.) • Shakuntala Devi v. DDIT: 31 CCH 32 (Bang.) • Kamal Mishra v. ITO: 19 SOT 251 (Del.)(Further appeal dismissed by the High Court

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANJALA EXHIBITORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

193). In the same judgment (Supra), Hon ’ble Supreme Court further proceeded to observe that, to quote: A decision reached in one year would be a cogent factor in the determination of a similar question in .a following year, but ordinarily there is no bar against the investigation by the ITO of the same facts on which a decision

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

Appeal is allowed and order of the High Court is set aside

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

193 (SC). 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating incidental and compulsory services such as power backup, security, lifts, etc., as "complex commercial support services without establishing independent or standalone business character, which are in fact inherent in property leasing activity and not constituting business

PAWA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

section 22 of the Act to treat the rent received as “Income from House Property”. Therefore, when the rent received is specifically taxable under the head "Income from House Property" it cannot be taxed under the head “Business Income” 3.3. The objectives as defined in the MOA of the appellant are as follows:- "1. To act as contractors

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

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

house property, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83. Mr Singh is right

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

house property, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83. Mr Singh is right

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

house property, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83. Mr Singh is right