ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

200 by adopting the rate of property as on 1/4/1981 at ₹ 7,710,000 based on the report of government approved valuer who has valued the entire property for a sum of Rs. 1,54,20,000 the assessee has sold half share of this property and therefore the above valuation has been taken. However, the learned assessing officer questioned

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

200 by adopting the rate of property as on 1/4/1981 at ₹ 7,710,000 based on the report of government approved valuer who has valued the entire property for a sum of Rs. 1,54,20,000 the assessee has sold half share of this property and therefore the above valuation has been taken. However, the learned assessing officer questioned

SH. ANKIT MITTAL,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

house property but the AO restricted the same to 50% of the loss by holding that as per the purchase deed, the property was in the joint names of the assessee and his wife Smt. Ritu Mittal. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) 9 Ankit Mittal ignored all the submissions made by the assessee who categorically stated

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 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire, show-caused the Assessee to furnish the detailed reasons with justification for filing of the revised return. 2.1 In response, the Assessee vide letter dated 24.11.2017, claimed as under: "The Assessee company has appointed an expert & experienced operating management agency M/s Four Seasons Hospitality Pvt. Ltd for carrying the business from

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. AMITA GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

House Property) of the Income Tax Act will not be applicable. Therefore, AO has CO Nos. 250, 255 & 256/Del/2012 Ranjana & Amita Garg wrongly applied the provisions of section 23(1)(a). In a judgment given by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v Modi Industries Ltd. (No.4) [1993] 200

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RANJANA GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

House Property) of the Income Tax Act will not be applicable. Therefore, AO has CO Nos. 250, 255 & 256/Del/2012 Ranjana & Amita Garg wrongly applied the provisions of section 23(1)(a). In a judgment given by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v Modi Industries Ltd. (No.4) [1993] 200

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2002-03

house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, and then secondly, by computing income in terms of section 92 of the Act, by making addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment, if warranted. The additional ground raised under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, is, therefore, dismissed

MRS. KUSUM LATA JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Acit, Central Circle-12, New Mrs. Kusum Lata Jain, G-19, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaipj1375K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. M.P. Rastogi & P.N. Shastri, Advocates Respondent By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 15/06/2012 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxxi, New Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit-(A)’] For Assessment Year 2007-08 Raising Following Grounds:

property at Rs.3,93,600/-. The Assessing Officer multiplied the monthly rent with 12 months and computed the Annual Lettable Value (ALV) at Rs.47,23,200/- and after allowing deduction at the rate of 30% under section 24 of the Act, an addition of Rs.33,06,240/- was made under the head “income from house

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

house property', the rent received on account of furniture and fixtures alone was held to be admissible under 'income from other sources'. 17.3 However, the Supreme Court accepted the Assessee's claim by holding that 'when a building, plant, machinery or furniture are inseparably let, the Act contemplates the rent for the building as a residuary head of income

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SIGMA INFORMATION SYSTEM,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2013-14 Ito, Ward-30(1), Vs. Sigma Information New Delhi System, Pan: Abefs 3498M Shed 1 & 2, Opposite Radio Mirchi, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase- Iv, New Delhi. Pan: Abefs 3498M (Assessee) (Respondent) Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. Assessee(S) By : Shri Rahul Khare, Adv.

200/-. With these submissions, it has been contended that assessee has rightly disclosed the rental income of Rs.1,34,40,000/- under the head "Income from House Property" and deserves to claim deductions thereon u/s.24(a) 24(b) of the Act. 5.1 It was further observed by ld. CIT(A) that Assessing Officer should have considered all the facts disclosed

ANURAG TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita No. 2626/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anurag Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O R B Tyagi, Flat No. 303, Ward-1(1), Super Tech, Avant Grade Plot Ghaziabad No. 1, Sector-5, Vaishali, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpt6848P Assessee By : Sh. Anup Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Prasar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.01.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

200/- is hereby disallowed. Therefore, computation of Long Term Capital Gain is done as below: Assessee’s share in sale of two houses (30.04.2008): Rs. 35,00,000/- Less: Indexed value as per Chart submitted by the assessee (-)Rs. 16,09,907/- Rs. 18,90,093/- Less: Investment in Capital Gain Bonds of National Highways (-)Rs. 6,50,000/- Authority

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

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

200 sq. meter (approx. 2000 sq. feet) and permissible ground floor coverage is 134 sq. meter (approx. 1340 sq. feet) This fact itself indicates that maximum built up area of residential unit permissible as per the building by-laws was beyond 1000 sq. feet. In the housing project, Golf Link-II, on enquiry, it was found that type

THE ACIT.,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

200 sq. meter (approx. 2000 sq. feet) and permissible ground floor coverage is 134 sq. meter (approx. 1340 sq. feet) This fact itself indicates that maximum built up area of residential unit permissible as per the building by-laws was beyond 1000 sq. feet. In the housing project, Golf Link-II, on enquiry, it was found that type

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

200 sq. meter (approx. 2000 sq. feet) and permissible ground floor coverage is 134 sq. meter (approx. 1340 sq. feet) This fact itself indicates that maximum built up area of residential unit permissible as per the building by-laws was beyond 1000 sq. feet. In the housing project, Golf Link-II, on enquiry, it was found that type

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

200 sq. meter (approx. 2000 sq. feet) and permissible ground floor coverage is 134 sq. meter (approx. 1340 sq. feet) This fact itself indicates that maximum built up area of residential unit permissible as per the building by-laws was beyond 1000 sq. feet. In the housing project, Golf Link-II, on enquiry, it was found that type

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

200,000 and therefore the net addition of RS. 10,92,000/– was made as assessee has only declared RS. 108000/- as income from that property. The learned AO granted 30% deduction under section 24 of the income tax act and determined additional income under the head income from house

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

200,000 and therefore the net addition of RS. 10,92,000/– was made as assessee has only declared RS. 108000/- as income from that property. The learned AO granted 30% deduction under section 24 of the income tax act and determined additional income under the head income from house