ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

section 54 of Income-tax Act he is required to purchase a residential house property either one year before or within two year after the date of transfer of original asset; or within a period of three years after that date he is required to construct a residential house. We note that it has been clarified by the CBDT

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

house property for the year under consideration, we dismiss the same. iii). iii). iii). iii). CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 123 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

house property for the year under consideration, we dismiss the same. iii). iii). iii). iii). CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 123 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) CIT Vs Fabriquip (P.) Ltd., [2002] 1 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

HOUSE PROPERTY 1,31,761 2. INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION i. Net profit from business as show by the assessee : Rs. 37,29,547 ii. Add: bogus purchase : 20,69,898 iii. Add: Claim of depreciation : Rs. 4,83,994 iv. Add: Interest Payment disallowed : Rs. 1,20,213 v. Add: Personal expenses

ANJU CHAWLA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 alongwith survey operations u/s 133 A of the Income Tax Act 1961 were undertaken at various residential and business premises of Aseem kumar Gupta & Group and other beneficiary group of cases on 26.03.2010. Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta

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? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to Rs. 2,18,304/- out of Rs. 39,14,000/- is giving relief of Rs. 36,95,625/- to the assessee on adhoc basis. 4. That the order

MADHURITTU PURI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2)(2) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

house property as adopted by the AO/DRP at Rs.1,03,43,551 for Appellant’s 1/3rd share s inadequate and the addition of Rs.2,23,23,116 as made towards long term capital gain is very excessive. 6. That the levy of interest under section 234D of Rs.9,00,769 is illegal and at any rate, very excessive. 7. That

KAMLESH KHANNA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-40(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 54 amounting to Rs. 1,13,04,000/- made by the AO. The CIT(Appeals) as well as the AO failed to appreciate that the Assessee had purchased only one residential property. 3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) as well as the AO have erred in law and on facts in treating

RAJ KUMAR CHAWLA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuvs Raj Kumar Chawla Acit A-7, Nirman Vihar, Central Circle-Ix Delhi. New Delhi. Aalpc1209J Appellant Respondent

house property Rs. 4,36,036/-; 2. Addition on account of un-explained loan of Rs. 2,29,73,630/-; 3. Addition on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) on protective basis Rs. 46,588/-. 3. The assessee challenged the above additions before the Ld. CIT(A) and raised various grounds of appeal. The assessee also filed application

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

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

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]

property. She further submitted that even as per section 54 of the Act, there is no requirement that the assessee should have actually received the physical possession of the flat within the prescribed time limit of 2/3 years. 9. Regarding the finding of the Learned CIT(A) that CBDT Circular No. 672 dated 16/10/1993 and Circular No. 471 dated 15/10/1986

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURYA BUILDWELL (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

216 CTR 295 as well as several other judicial precedents deleted the above addition. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that that relying on the statement of certain persons under section 131 of the act on 22/09/2003, much before the search, were general statements. He further held that despite having conducted the search on the premises of the appellant

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

216 CTR 295 as well as several other judicial precedents deleted the above addition. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that that relying on the statement of certain persons under section 131 of the act on 22/09/2003, much before the search, were general statements. He further held that despite having conducted the search on the premises of the appellant

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

216 CTR 295 as well as several other judicial precedents deleted the above addition. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that that relying on the statement of certain persons under section 131 of the act on 22/09/2003, much before the search, were general statements. He further held that despite having conducted the search on the premises of the appellant

RITA GOYAL,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), MEERUT

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2013-14 Rita Goyal, Ito, Ward- 2(2), Meerut, Kashyap & Co. Cas, Uttar Pradesh. 214, Citi Center, Vs. Begum Bridge Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.

house property as per the provisions of Sec.50C of the Act when the property in question was a lease hold property. 2. That the A.O. had framed assessment after adopting the value as per the provisions of Sec.50C of the Act in spite of the specific request of the assessee to refer the matter of valuation

AVTAR KRISHEN JALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 29(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Avtar Krishen Jalla, Vs Ito, D-6, Pamposh Enclave, Ward 29(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadpj6244N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Upender Bhatt, Fca Revenue By : Shri Farath Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2021 Order

House being constructed by M/s UNITECH. The amount was to be utilised within 36 months. The appellant invested Rs.35.1 lakh within 36 months. And the balance of Rs.14.9 lakh could not be used during this period. The AO has accordingly made the addition. iii. It is also undisputed fact that as per the agreement the premises was to be handed