M/S DENA BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result appeals filed by the appellant are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

properties movable and immovable; and (e) all moneys received by the Authority by way of rents and profits or in any other manner or from any other source." Section 21 deals with the budget of the Authority while section 22 deals with the accounts and audit. These sections are reproduced below : "21. Budget of the Authority--The Authority shall prepare

ACIT, DELHI vs. M/S. THE INDIAN NEWS PAPER SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

194-I of the Act. The DR further submitted that the assessee has acquired land rights from Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority which provided land to the assessee on lease basis but on payment of lease premium. The Departmental Representative also contended that the assessee company was not holding full rights of land as the agreement entered into between Mumbai

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

DIRECTOR OF NCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

194-I applies in case of payment by way of rent to Government, statutory authorities referred to in section 10(20A) and local authorities whose income under the head "Income from house property

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

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

194/- and therefore the long-term capital gain which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the act is amounting to RS. 1, 08,67,12,219/–. 14. Further the learned assessing officer asked details of the immovable properties owned by the assessee and found that the property at Mussoorie is acquired by the assessee and her husband in the year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

194/- and therefore the long-term capital gain which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the act is amounting to RS. 1, 08,67,12,219/–. 14. Further the learned assessing officer asked details of the immovable properties owned by the assessee and found that the property at Mussoorie is acquired by the assessee and her husband in the year

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

194/- and therefore the long-term capital gain which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the act is amounting to RS. 1, 08,67,12,219/–. 14. Further the learned assessing officer asked details of the immovable properties owned by the assessee and found that the property at Mussoorie is acquired by the assessee and her husband in the year

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

194/- and therefore the long-term capital gain which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the act is amounting to RS. 1, 08,67,12,219/–. 14. Further the learned assessing officer asked details of the immovable properties owned by the assessee and found that the property at Mussoorie is acquired by the assessee and her husband in the year

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

194/- and therefore the long-term capital gain which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the act is amounting to RS. 1, 08,67,12,219/–. 14. Further the learned assessing officer asked details of the immovable properties owned by the assessee and found that the property at Mussoorie is acquired by the assessee and her husband in the year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

194/- and therefore the long-term capital gain which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the act is amounting to RS. 1, 08,67,12,219/–. 14. Further the learned assessing officer asked details of the immovable properties owned by the assessee and found that the property at Mussoorie is acquired by the assessee and her husband in the year

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

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

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

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

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