DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

house property” and dispute is only with reference to lease income from SEZ buildings as notified u/s 80IA of the Act. The ld AR submitted that the identity, nature and character of SEZ as well as non-SEZ buildings are same and that the lease agreements in respect of these buildings are continuing from preceding years. Due deduction

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

house property” and dispute is only with reference to lease income from SEZ buildings as notified u/s 80IA of the Act. The ld AR submitted that the identity, nature and character of SEZ as well as non-SEZ buildings are same and that the lease agreements in respect of these buildings are continuing from preceding years. Due deduction

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

house property” and dispute is only with reference to lease income from SEZ buildings as notified u/s 80IA of the Act. The ld AR submitted that the identity, nature and character of SEZ as well as non-SEZ buildings are same and that the lease agreements in respect of these buildings are continuing from preceding years. Due deduction

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

house property” and dispute is only with reference to lease income from SEZ buildings as notified u/s 80IA of the Act. The ld AR submitted that the identity, nature and character of SEZ as well as non-SEZ buildings are same and that the lease agreements in respect of these buildings are continuing from preceding years. Due deduction

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

house property” and dispute is only with reference to lease income from SEZ buildings as notified u/s 80IA of the Act. The ld AR submitted that the identity, nature and character of SEZ as well as non-SEZ buildings are same and that the lease agreements in respect of these buildings are continuing from preceding years. Due deduction

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 194I is not conclusive of taxability of the related income under the head 'income from house property'. The conclusions

SHRI M M CREATIONS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai & M. M. Creations Acit T-481A, Baljeet Nagar Circle-24(1), Behind Patel Nagar Police Station New Delhi Vs. New Delhi. Pan : Aaefm9802A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 194I is not conclusive of taxability of the related income under the head ‘income from house property’. The conclusions

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

194I 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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEEMRANA HOTELS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11

194I except in the case of M/s DWPL and TDS has been made as per section 194C under the garb of contractual payments. Therefore, AO held that there is short deduction of TDS by the assessee under section 194-I in the cases of Peirce Leslie India Ltd., Sudhir Muljee, Francis Wacziarg, Matheson Bosanquet Ent Ltd., Meera Kulkarni, Ashok Jain

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

PVR LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

194I and maintenance contract are governed by Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this backdrop of the provisions of the Act, the affairs of the assessee are examined. As per the lease deed entered by the assessee with M/s Gopalan Enterprises, Bangalore, the assessee obtained piece and parcel of the shop on lease of unit

PVR LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

194I and maintenance contract are governed by Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this backdrop of the provisions of the Act, the affairs of the assessee are examined. As per the lease deed entered by the assessee with M/s Gopalan Enterprises, Bangalore, the assessee obtained piece and parcel of the shop on lease of unit

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

194I of I.T. Act in respect of the aforesaid lease premium amounting to Rs. 13,81,17,243/- paid to MMRDA. For the sake of convenience all the grounds raised in the Revenue’s appeal as well as in the Assessee’s C.O. are disposed off together. (C.2) At the time of hearing before us, the learned Senior Departmental Representative

JHONSON WATCH COMPANY PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 75(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Johnson Watch Company Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd. Circle 75(1), L-21, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi Appellant Respondent Pan: Aabcj9807G

house property. In the case before hand, the CAM charges are paid by the lessor and the appellant has no control on actual expenditure to be incurred by the lessor. In view of above mentioned factual and legal position, thus it is clear that the CAM charges paid by the appellant are part of rent liable

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. That is not the intendment of the Legislature. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that there was a legal principle as propounded by the Apex Court, the claim needs to be seen from the return of income and where such claim was correct at such point of time. Ld. Counsel also relied

TCNS CLOTHING CO. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (TDS) CIRCLE - 76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1994 & 1995/Del/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2011-12 & 2012-13 बनाम Tcns Clothing Co. Limited, Acit (Tds), 119, W-House, New Vs. Circle-76(1), Manglapuri, Aaykar Bhawan, Mandi Road, Sultanpur, District Centre, Mehrauli, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Pan No. Aaact4432E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

House, New Vs. Circle-76(1), Manglapuri, Aaykar Bhawan, Mandi Road, Sultanpur, District Centre, Mehrauli, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. PAN No. AAACT4432E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. Shri Ankit Saini, Adv. Revenue by Shri Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 19.05.2023 31.05.2023 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश

TCNS CLOTHING CO. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (TDS) CIRCLE - 76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1994 & 1995/Del/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2011-12 & 2012-13 बनाम Tcns Clothing Co. Limited, Acit (Tds), 119, W-House, New Vs. Circle-76(1), Manglapuri, Aaykar Bhawan, Mandi Road, Sultanpur, District Centre, Mehrauli, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Pan No. Aaact4432E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

House, New Vs. Circle-76(1), Manglapuri, Aaykar Bhawan, Mandi Road, Sultanpur, District Centre, Mehrauli, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. PAN No. AAACT4432E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. Shri Ankit Saini, Adv. Revenue by Shri Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 19.05.2023 31.05.2023 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश

KAPOOR WATCH COMPANY PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRLCE-75(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri O. P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 889/Del/2020 (A.Y 2011-12) (Through Video Conferencing) Kapoor Watch Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit G-7, South Extension, Part-1, Circle-75(1) New Delhi New Delhi Aaack3885A (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv & Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr

194I of the Act instead of Section 194C of the Act by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case of Sunil Kumar Gupta vs. ACIT 389 ITR 38. The Ld. AR submitted that CIT (A) while sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble High