GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), GURGAON, GURUGRAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

house property, as amount received by AOP is for maintenance charges and common charges which is further paid by AOP for common expenses and is not chargeable on the basis of concept of mutuality. Page 5 of 10 6. That the assessment order is void and invalid in law as Assessing Officer not take effect of Tax deducted at source

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

house property, as amount received by AOP is for maintenance charges and common charges which is further paid by AOP for common expenses and is not chargeable on the basis of concept of mutuality. Page 5 of 10 6. That the assessment order is void and invalid in law as Assessing Officer not take effect of Tax deducted at source

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Galleria Condominium Vs Ito, Association, Galleria Building, Ward-1(3), Dlf Phase Iv, Dlf City, Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaaag3018P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rishabh Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Jaishree, Ca Respondent By Shri Mithalesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As interest income is disbursed to members who had contributed to it. 4. Further as per verdict of Bangalore Club v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, Interest income is not taxable as concept of mutuality has been extended to define groups of people who contribute to a common fund, controlled

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 80TTA of the Act in computation sheet. (Tax Effect Rs. 2,060/-) 6. That the learned Assessing Officer has further erred both in law and on facts in levying interest of Rs. 9,486/- u/s 234B of the Act which is not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. Prayer: It is therefore, prayed

ATUL SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh.Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Atul Sharma 207, Lawyers Vs. Acit Chamber, Delhi High Court Circle – 61 (1) New Delhi-110003 New Delhi Pan No.Aarps6964J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 198 r.w.s. 199 of the Act and this grand of the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.47,520/- is confirmed. 8. The short issue that arises for our consideration is whether the compensation received by the assessee from Jaypee Greens Greater Noida for non-delivery of property in time could

DHEERAJ THAKRAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Dheeraj Thakran, Vs Ito, C/O Nagesh Bhel & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), 21/25, Moti Nagar, Hsiidc Building, New Delhi. Udyog Vihar-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aewpt8543B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

194A(a) and Rs.4,20,000/- as professional receipt as trainer of gym. Therefore, making addition of the rental income of the equipments and again adding the rental income as income from house property amounts to double taxation of the same. 10. So far as the amount of Rs.50,40,000/- in the bank account is concerned, the ld. counsel

ATUL SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad & Sh. M.Balaganeshmr. Atul Sharma Vs. Ito 207, Lawyers Chamber Circle – 37(1) Delhi High Court, New Delhi New Delhi-110 003 Pan No. Aarps 6964 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Audhisthir Mehtani, Adv., Mr. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Shrey Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh:

Housing Infrastructure development Corporation Limited reported in 413 ITR 82 also had an occasion to look into the similar issue from the context of applicability of TDS provision on compensation paid by builder to the flat allottees for delayed delivery of the flats in terms of section 194A of the Act. In this case also, the compensation was determined

HARI MACHINES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Hari Machines Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4, Scindia House, Connaught Circle-11(1), Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaach0868C (Appellant) (Respondent)

House, Connaught Circle-11(1), Place, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACH0868C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/08/2021 Date of pronouncement 03/08/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order

SUBHASH CHAND DHINGRA ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

194A. Earlier while filing the Original Return, the Interest received on Enhanced Compensation was offered for taxation under section 56 (2)(viii) in income from other sources and 50% deduction was claimed as per Section 57(iv) but later on there was judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Hari Singh and others

SATISH KUMAR DHINGRA ,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

194A. Earlier while filing the Original Return, the Interest received on Enhanced Compensation was offered for taxation under section 56 (2)(viii) in income from other sources and 50% deduction was claimed as per Section 57(iv) but later on there was judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Hari Singh and others

ASHOK KUMAR DHINGRA ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

194A. Earlier while filing the Original Return, the Interest received on Enhanced Compensation was offered for taxation under section 56 (2)(viii) in income from other sources and 50% deduction was claimed as per Section 57(iv) but later on there was judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Hari Singh and others

BRAHAM SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 4757/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ita No.4756/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Braham Singh, Vs Assessment Unit, House N0.57, Dhansa . Income Tax Department Raota, South West Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 73 Delhi. Pan: Fhmps9910M (Appellant) (Respondent)

House N0.57, Dhansa . Income Tax Department Raota, South West Delhi Delhi PIN: 1100 73 Delhi. PAN: FHMPS9910M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: S/Shri I.P. Bansal & Vivek Bansal, Advs. Department by: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 08.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 08.05.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeals filed by the Appellant/assessee are against

BRAHAM SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 4757/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ita No.4756/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Braham Singh, Vs Assessment Unit, House N0.57, Dhansa . Income Tax Department Raota, South West Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 73 Delhi. Pan: Fhmps9910M (Appellant) (Respondent)

House N0.57, Dhansa . Income Tax Department Raota, South West Delhi Delhi PIN: 1100 73 Delhi. PAN: FHMPS9910M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: S/Shri I.P. Bansal & Vivek Bansal, Advs. Department by: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 08.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 08.05.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeals filed by the Appellant/assessee are against

LOKENDRA PRASHAD ASTHANA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-61(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

property or of the unit-holder, or of the shareholder, as the case may be. (2) Any sum referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192 and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as the tax paid on behalf of the person in respect of whose income such payment of tax has been made. (3) The Board

GULSHAN HOMES AND INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DR. MANOJ KUMAR, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI

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

194A\n| AYAP: 75020 Ashley Jam\n| Salaried Perso\n| 5\n240000.00\n24000.00 2019-20\nD5-1944\n| ADPSC354A Divya Parashar\n| Salaried Perso\n| 5\n240000.00\n1400000 2019-20\nDS 1944\n| AVCP58/58C Ashok lain\n| Salaried Perso\n| 30\n240000.00\n24000.00 2019-20\n105-1944\n| AAAP551629 Sachin V Shah\n| Proprwtor\n| 3\n131250.00

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

housed. The expenditure for the steam, which is\nutilised in generation of power, and the balance steam which is\nutilised by the chemical plant can be determined by distributing the\nsame in proportion to the heat value (Enthalpy) of the inlet steam\nand the outlet steam of the turbine. As per the details available on\nrecord the heat value