ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF ASSETS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

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

house property Less : Property 25,43,443 Tax Less : Interest 73,13,20,464 Less : 623,17,72,906 Depreciation Less : Other Business Expenditure - Marketing 9,26,78,290 Service Charges - Land Lease 7,36,63,588 713,19,78,691 Rent Income from business -130,43,39,196 Gross total income After set-off with business loss NIL Less

SANJIV AHUJA,DELHI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2012-13

properties of different places. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain the same. Assessee submitted that as per provisions of section 54 of the I.T. Act the assessee should purchase / construct a residential house. Assessee also relied on the various decisions :- CIT VII Vs. Gita Duggal 52 taxmann.com.246(SC) 2014 CIT Vs. Khoobchand M Makhija 43 taxmann.com

SANJAY SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property in respect of property no. flat no.202 tower 17 Nirvana, Gurgaon, Ld CIT(A) has ignored the limit of deduction U/s 24b is applicable to the assessee wise and not property wise, if the assessee owns 2 Sanjay Singh more than one property and property is let out or deemed to be let out then there

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

house". ➤ 417 ITR 547, KishorbhaiHarjibhai Patel vs. ITO (Gujarat H.C.) in which the above cited SC judgment in Sanjeev Lal has been followed. ➤ 254 ITR 22, Balraj vs. CIT (Delhi HC). Relevant findings of the High Court are reproduced at page 16 of PB and also reproduced below: "The Assessing Officer, the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal rejected

ITO WARD - 30(1), NEW DELHI vs. KUSUM GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue Department, stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

property purchased by assessee out of sale proceeds should be of residential nature and the fact that residential house consisted of several independent units cannot be an impediment for granting relief under said section, even if such independent units are situated side by side, on different floors or are purchased under separate sale deeds. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5162/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5163/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Airports Authority Of India, Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Ward-1(1), Airport, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca6412D Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

196 on this ground. FAA per se cannot be treated as a foreign sovereign Government. There is no general immunity from taxation unless specified which is found absent by going through the agreements entered between the two organizations. That leads to a conclusion that the taxability is determined based on the law of the land and the treaties entered between

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5162/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5163/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Airports Authority Of India, Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Ward-1(1), Airport, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca6412D Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

196 on this ground. FAA per se cannot be treated as a foreign sovereign Government. There is no general immunity from taxation unless specified which is found absent by going through the agreements entered between the two organizations. That leads to a conclusion that the taxability is determined based on the law of the land and the treaties entered between

SNEH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

house property for construction and spent entire consideration in purchase of plot and construction there on within 3 years of the sale of original assets. PB 183 is the copy of detail and source of construction expenses for the subject residential property. PB 185 is the copy of assessee's reply dated 18.12.2018 before Ld. AO against the show cause

AMARJEET SINGH BHATIA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 23, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Us:-

house property for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- + Stamp Duty charges Rs 12,000/-, totaling Rs.1,62,000/- Also, photocopy of Sale Deed dated 27th February 2013 of property Q 12-8. First Floor, Jangpura Extn, New Delhi, which is only for sale of first floor of the said property was perused. A perusal of Schedule of the said

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), INTERNATIOANL TAXATION, NEW DELHI vs. HEERA LAL BHASIN LEGAL HEIR OF LT. SH. MOHAN LAL BHASIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

property in New Delhi for Rs. 7,00,00,000/- on 2.11.2012 resulting in Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 6,70,18,000/- which the assessee claimed as exempt u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) as he invested Rs. 9,44,34,110/- in purchase of three plots in Gurgaon, Haryana and constructed houses

VINAY BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

house property at S - 196, Panchsheel Park, Delhi, has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee - appellant was not able to let out the said property despite his best efforts for want of tenant and further, the addition of a sum of Rs. 4, 15, 520/- as notional rent is too without any basis and is also misconceived

ROBIN SINGH CHAUHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 29(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Robin Singh Chauhan, Vs Acit, 100/1, Gautam Nagar, Circle-29(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaepc9857F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate & Shri Venkatesh Chaurasia, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-10, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Years 2012- 13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Long-Term Capital Gain & Other Sources. He Filed His Return Of Income On 28Th July, 2012 Declaring The Total Income At Rs2,61,98,009/- Which Was Processed U/S 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Shown An Income Of Rs.2,46,33,865/- Under The Head ‘Long- Term Capital Gain.’ The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act For An Amount Of Rs.2,05,71,400/- On Account Of Investment In Two Properties. The Calculation Of The Cost Of Acquisition Of The New Property As Submitted By The Assessee & Reproduced By The Ao Is As Under:-

section 54 and came to the conclusion that the expression “residential house” provides for exemption for acquisition of one house property. He, therefore, confronted the assessee regarding the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. It was submitted by the assessee that the article ‘a’ is synonymous with ‘any’ and the article ‘a’ is not necessarily a singular term

VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

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

196/- will be set off against income form house property Rs.20,52,542/-, against income from other sources Rs.5,40,403/- and against STCG Rs.65,251/- thereby balance STCG of Rs.3,84,82,308/- will be set off against c/f loss under the same head of STCG (against applicable c/f STCG Rs.4,41,05,508/-) so that speculative loss

VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

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

196/- will be set off against income form house property Rs.20,52,542/-, against income from other sources Rs.5,40,403/- and against STCG Rs.65,251/- thereby balance STCG of Rs.3,84,82,308/- will be set off against c/f loss under the same head of STCG (against applicable c/f STCG Rs.4,41,05,508/-) so that speculative loss

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 03, NEW DELHI vs. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

196 noting that assessee is engaged in the business of development of real estate and it is one of the largest realistic developer in the field of colonization and township developments all over the country the procurement of the various material is source from the various countries across the globe. The company takes technical assistance/know-how from the repeated technical consultants

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

house where is a small room allotted to Sh. Mishra the cashier wherein the cash belonging to my business concerns is kept. Q. 48 Do you want to say anything else ? Ans. No, nothing. Signed 26.11.99 I have read over the above statement and understood the same . I found that it has been correctly recorded. The above statement has been

MR. ABHISAR SHARMA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

house property Rs.81,609/- Total Rs.2,02,919/- 3. Subsequently, on 24.07.2013 the CIT-16, Delhi, called for a report from the AO regarding errors in assessment of the assessee and his wife Smt. Shumana Sen. An order u/s 127 of the Act was passed by the ld.CIT-16 on 27.08.2013 transferring the jurisdiction over the assessee’s case from

PRASHANTA KUMAR GHOSE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2009-10

property for commercial use as a clinic, no deduction under section 54 of the Act can be granted to the assessee. 5. We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the materials on record. As could be seen from the submissions made by the assessee, in course of proceedings before the departmental authorities, during the year under consideration, the assessee