SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, 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

Section 54EC of the Act. He also rejected the contention of the assessee that the capital gain should have been taxed in assessment year 2007 – 08. AO further stated that assessee himself is not sure in which year he would like to offer the taxability of the capital gain arising on the sale of the above property. However

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

Section 54EC of the Act. He also rejected the contention of the assessee that the capital gain should have been taxed in assessment year 2007 – 08. AO further stated that assessee himself is not sure in which year he would like to offer the taxability of the capital gain arising on the sale of the above property. However

RAM MOHAN RAI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Mohan Rai, Vs. Acit, A-8/25, Vansant Vihar, Circle-33(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaapr0728C (Appellant) (Respondent)

211 (Kar). Relying on Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, it was held as under by their Lordships at para 10 of the judgment: "(2) words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa" 10. The context in which the expression 'a residential house' is used in Section 54 makes it clear that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RAMINDER SINGH NARANG, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Raminder Singh Narang, Circle-38(1), C/O. Romana Herbal Care Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, E-43, Flatted Factory Complex, Jhandewalan, New Delhi Pan:Aacpn5607L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54 F of the income tax act, 1961. The Ld. CIT appeal followed the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Dr Luxmi Chand Nagda 211 ITR 804 for reaching at this conclusion. 7. Regarding the income of Rs. 168000/- added under the income from house property

SMT. NEELAM HANDA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishineelam Handa, Ito, C-7/7, Ground Floor, Ward-20(4), Vs. Model Town-Iii, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abgph5388D (Appellant) (Respondent)

211 (Mumbai) ; 100 ITD 60. It was held that there is no requirement of law that same amount of sale consideration should be utilised for acquisition of property for claiming exemption under section 54 of the Act. The Tribunal placed reliance upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of Bombay Housing

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

211 (Kar) wherein it has been held! that residential flats constitute 'a residential housel for the purpose of section 54, where profit on sale of property is used for residence and further held that four residential flats cannot be construed as four residential houses

RAJEEVA RANJAN,MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 52(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

property only. We have perused the various case laws and have also gone through the legal position on the issue as decided in various judgments by various authorities. 11. ITAT Mumbai in the case of Nilesh Pravin Vora and Yatin Pravin Vora, held that exemption u/s 54/54F will be allowed for purchase of more than one residential unit

RAVI JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

211 and the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Geeta Dugal, 257 CTR 208 wherein multiple investments in units in the same residential complex were treated to qualify for deduction u/s. 54F. Thus, the argument of the assessee revolved around the fact that even multiple residential units should be treated as one house and deduction should

SUNANDAN KUMAR MINOCHA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-63(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

house consisting of several independent units cannot be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under section 54/54F, it is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited • CIT & ANR. vs. SMT. K.G. RUKMINIAMMA - 331 ITR 211 (Karnataka High Court) Capital gains-Exemption under s. 54-Investment in more than one residential houses/flats Assessee entered into

MR. VIPIN MANTAKTALA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

house property is a notional concept therefore, it has to be taxed whether any income is derived from it or not. As the annual value of the property is a notional one the addition of Rs. 55,800/- made by the AO is upheld. This ground is decided against the appellant.” 4. Aggrieved by the order

MR. VIPIN MANTAKTALA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

house property is a notional concept therefore, it has to be taxed whether any income is derived from it or not. As the annual value of the property is a notional one the addition of Rs. 55,800/- made by the AO is upheld. This ground is decided against the appellant.” 4. Aggrieved by the order

MR. VIPIN MANTAKTALA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

house property is a notional concept therefore, it has to be taxed whether any income is derived from it or not. As the annual value of the property is a notional one the addition of Rs. 55,800/- made by the AO is upheld. This ground is decided against the appellant.” 4. Aggrieved by the order

MR. VIPIN MANTAKTALA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

house property is a notional concept therefore, it has to be taxed whether any income is derived from it or not. As the annual value of the property is a notional one the addition of Rs. 55,800/- made by the AO is upheld. This ground is decided against the appellant.” 4. Aggrieved by the order

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MODI RUBBER LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/S Modi Rubber Ltd Circle – 5(1) 4 – 7C, Dda Shopping Centre New Delhi New Friends Colony New Delhi Pan : Aaacm 2062 R [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr

house property’. 11 14. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd reported at 169 ITR 597 [SC]. The facts of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision is reproduced hereinbelow: “The respondent- assessee company, carried on business of manufacture

UNIVERSAL BUILDRISE PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS UNIVERSAL BOOK DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

house property at Rs.37,37,983/-. Since, the assessee has made purchases of Rs.1,09,613/- and that too from its sister concern and since, the major sale has been made to only one party i.e. to Mohan Lal Sukhadia Univsersity amounting to Rs.1,22,211/-, the Assessing Officer held that the intention of the assessee was only

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

section 139(4) of the Act. The chronological events of sale of the original asset and investment in new residential house submitted by the assessee are reproduced as under: S.NO. Particulars Remark 1. Sale of residential house Property at 23.06.2010 211

M/S METRO TYRES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

house property.” 4. Both the parties take us to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing the assessee’s depreciation claim on non-compete fee, amounting to Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act as under: 5. Ground No. 3: “That the learned Assessing officer has erred

METRO TYRES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

house property.” 4. Both the parties take us to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing the assessee’s depreciation claim on non-compete fee, amounting to Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act as under: 5. Ground No. 3: “That the learned Assessing officer has erred