ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GARDENIA SHELTERS (P) LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

3, the Authority shall be a Body Corporate. ii. As per Section 11, the Authority may with the previous approval of the state Government levy taxes. iii. As per Section 23, the Authority shall prepare an annual report to the State Government which shall be laid before both houses of the legislature. iv. As per section 42, the Authority shall

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

194A(3)(iii)(f) has to be approved. 10 SJP Infracon Ltd. 13. Now coming to the direction of the High Court regarding deduction of tax at source on the payment of lease rent as per Section 194‐ I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the authority has relied on Circular dated 30.01.1995. Section 194I of the Income

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

194A(3) (iii) (f) of the Act by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Therefore, provisions of Section 194-I of the Act are inapplicable to NoidaAuthority. 4. The income tax authorities ignored the explanations provided and issued notices of demand under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act treating the petitioner company as assessee-in-default for non-deduction

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

194A. In any case, once amount decreed by Arbitral Tribunal, it is a kind of a judgment debt and overrides the provisions of Income Tax Act; and in support, he relied upon the following judgments:- 1. Islamic Investment Co. v. UOI [2004] 265 ITR 254 (Bom.) I.T.A. No.2126 & 2749/DEL/2013 16 2. Madhusudan Shrikrishna v. Emkay Exports [2010] 188 Taxman

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

194A. In any case, once amount decreed by Arbitral Tribunal, it is a kind of a judgment debt and overrides the provisions of Income Tax Act; and in support, he relied upon the following judgments:- 1. Islamic Investment Co. v. UOI [2004] 265 ITR 254 (Bom.) I.T.A. No.2126 & 2749/DEL/2013 16 2. Madhusudan Shrikrishna v. Emkay Exports [2010] 188 Taxman

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(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

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

194A 2,48,603 - 22,37,431 Net Compensation credit. Further final payment of Rs. 3,88,746/- was made on 23.02.2018. v) 05.12.2017 The assessee entered into an agreement to sell 20-24 for office space in Project Digital Greens of M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd at Sector 61, Gurgaon, Haryana for Rs. 109 lacs. Till date of sale

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:

section 57(iii) of the Act. While doing so, the learned AO suo moto granted deduction of Rs.3,67,001/- to the assessee and proceeded to disallow the remaining sum of Rs.5,17,206/- and completed the assessment. 4. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee made a claim that compensation received from DLF for non delivery of property

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)

3 01/04/2009 to 6,44,707/- 31/03/2010 4 01/04/2010 to 6,32,813/- 31/03/2011 5 01/04/2011 to 2,76,458/- 31/03/2012 Total 24,25,426/- 6.6 In this light, the plea of the appellant has been considered in the light of the provisions of section 57 (ill) of the Act which is reproduced as under: - "57. The income chargeable under

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:

3. That CIT (A) erred in upholding the additions of Rs.4,20,000 made by the AO on account of professional income. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend the aforesaid grounds before disposal of the appeal.” 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the various additions

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

194A of the Act as the provisions of sec.!94A shall not apply where income is credited or paid to any banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applied. especially when there is no dispute that Kotak Mohindra Bank Ltd, is a banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies and further that section 19of Banking

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