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

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

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

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

193 (SC).\n7.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in treating incidental and compulsory services such as power\nbackup, security, lifts, etc., as \"complex commercial support services without\nestablishing independent or standalone business character, which are in fact\ninherent in property leasing activity and not constituting business

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

house property has been accepted by the department in all\nprevious years, and in this regards your kind attention is invited\nto the binding judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nCIT v. Radhasoami Satsang [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) and\nParashram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC),\nwherein it has been

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

house property has been accepted by the department in all\nprevious years, and in this regards your kind attention is invited\nto the binding judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nCIT v. Radhasoami Satsang [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) and\nParashram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC),\nwherein it has been

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

193 (SC).\n7.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in treating incidental and compulsory services such as power\nbackup, security, lifts, etc., as \"complex commercial support services without\nestablishing independent or standalone business character, which are in fact\ninherent in property leasing activity and not constituting business

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

193 (SC).\n7.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in treating incidental and compulsory services such as power\nbackup, security, lifts, etc., as \"complex commercial support services without\nestablishing independent or standalone business character, which are in fact\ninherent 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

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

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

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

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

193-198 of the paperbook. 6.3 Pertinently, during pendency of the afore-stated criminal and civil proceedings before various legal forums, in order to avoid prolonged litigation and resolve the aforesaid disputes, Cinepolis Gorup (mainly through Thymelicus) agreed to settle the disputes with the appellant and Mr. Deepak Marda, pursuant to which a Settlement Agreement dated 12.11.2013 was entered into

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOPAL DASS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD.

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 24 of the Act. 43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company 54 ITR 17 where

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOPAL DASS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD.

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 24 of the Act. 43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company 54 ITR 17 where

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOPAL DASS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD.

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 24 of the Act. 43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company 54 ITR 17 where

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIII vs. GOPAL DASS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT.LTD.

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 24 of the Act. 43. During the assessment proceedings, in its reply dated 15th December 1997 to the query raised by the AO, the Assessee pointed out that there is nothing in law which prohibited the leasing out of stock and trade. It relied on the decision in CIT v. Chagan Das and Company 54 ITR 17 where

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

house and of the premises taken by the\nInspectors on page no.10 and 11 of the assessment order. Further, the AO noted\non the basis of the Inspectors' report that the property purchased from Shri\nMahesh Aggarwal showed that buildings were constructed by the assessee on this\nsite for commercial purposes. The AO relying upon the enquiry made