CORONET HOTEL SERVICES & SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

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

section 194 (1) of the Act which deals with the rental income and thus goes to show that the Assessee has earned rental income from House Property

ASSERTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 3(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

property taken from it on sub-lease. With regard to the allegation of the AO that the said payment is covered under section 194-IA of the Act and thus, any payment without deduction of tax at source attracts disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 1d. AR submits that section 40(a)(ia) was amended w.e.f

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

CORONET HOTEL SERVICES & SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 6(3), NEW DELHI

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

house property. Assessee company had also filed service-tax return, from which it was noted that the assessee was registered with the service tax for renting of immovable properties and declared rental income from renting activities and the tenant has also deducted TDS as payments for rental u/s 194-I of the Act. AO asked the assessee why the expenses

ACIT, CIRCLE- 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. PLAZA PARTNERS, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2012-13

House let out throughout the year, the assessee has always treated and shown this property as a fixed capital asset and not stock-in-trade units balance sheet, accepted by the department since inception; the tenants are deducting tax at source at the rate as specified in section 194

DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

house property.’ When we consider the instruction of section 194-I in juxtaposition to that of section 22 of the Act, there

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

house property.’ When we consider the instruction of section 194-I in juxtaposition to that of section 22 of the Act, there

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

house property.’ When we consider the instruction of section 194-I in juxtaposition to that of section 22 of the Act, there

ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

house property.’ When we consider the instruction of section 194-I in juxtaposition to that of section 22 of the Act, there

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

house property.’ When we consider the instruction of section 194-I in juxtaposition to that of section 22 of the Act, there

ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

house property.’ When we consider the instruction of section 194-I in juxtaposition to that of section 22 of the Act, there

DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

house property.’ When we consider the instruction of section 194-I in juxtaposition to that of section 22 of the Act, there

GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

house property Under Chapter IV-C of the Act. Being so the objection raised by the Assessing Officer that the deduction as claimed u/s 24(a) would be a duplication of the expenses is erroneous and unsustainable in law. It is only for this reason that in every year since FY 1995-96 to the last assessment

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

194-IA, so as to deduct TDS by assessee on said refundable security deposit - Whether therefore, assessee could not be held as the assessee-in-default under section 201(1) and 201(1A) - Held, yes [Paras 5.4, 5.8 and 6] [In favour of assessee] Further without prejudice to the above it is submitted that even

M/S. SJP INFRACON LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3102/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Sjp Infracon Ltd., Vs Dcit, A-133, Sector-63, Tds, Noida-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaocs6480K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2022

194‐ I. Reliance on circular dated 30.01.1995 has been placed by the Noida/Greater Noida. A perusal of the circular dated 30.01.1995 indicate that the query which has been answered in the above circular is “Whether requirement of deduction of income tax at source under Section 194I applies in case of payment by way of rent to Government, statutory authorities referred

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

housing project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of Assessee‟s business. 70. The Assessee‟s case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

housing project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of Assessee‟s business. 70. The Assessee‟s case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

housing project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of Assessee‟s business. 70. The Assessee‟s case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles