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'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM vs. DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD., 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'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

SELECT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

section 22 are satisfied. Their Lordships further held that merely there is an entry in the object clause of the business showing a particular object, would not be the determinative factor to arrive at a conclusion that the income is to be treated as income from business or otherwise. It would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

house property. The CBDT Circular No. 1 of 2015 dated 21.01.2015 explains that the amendment applies in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. Consequently, the amendment will not apply to the case of the assessee which pertains to AY 2012-13. 22. It may be stated that the Ld. AO did not record any finding

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

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

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

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

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

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

SHUMA KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee failed on all five grounds raised before us

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishuma Kalra, Vs. Pr. Cit-12, A-28, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaipk8142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

house. He showed his inability. It proves that claim of deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act is not sustainable in law. (ii) Deemed Rental income. Unitech World. Gurgaon Property:- AO also did not raise any issue on what happened to property after being vacated by Bharti Axa (Gurgaon Property) & why deemed rental income was not offered

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)

section 80IB(10) does not arise. He further pointed out that the built-up area of each house in the aforesaid projects was less than 1000 sq.ft.. He pointed out that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the aforesaid projects was disallowed without going into the details of satisfaction of aforesaid various conditions by simply following the assessment order

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)

section 80IB(10) does not arise. He further pointed out that the built-up area of each house in the aforesaid projects was less than 1000 sq.ft.. He pointed out that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the aforesaid projects was disallowed without going into the details of satisfaction of aforesaid various conditions by simply following the assessment order

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)

section 80IB(10) does not arise. He further pointed out that the built-up area of each house in the aforesaid projects was less than 1000 sq.ft.. He pointed out that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the aforesaid projects was disallowed without going into the details of satisfaction of aforesaid various conditions by simply following the assessment order

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)

section 80IB(10) does not arise. He further pointed out that the built-up area of each house in the aforesaid projects was less than 1000 sq.ft.. He pointed out that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the aforesaid projects was disallowed without going into the details of satisfaction of aforesaid various conditions by simply following the assessment order

M/S. MISSION VIEJO AGRO PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4236/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Mission Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 48, Friends Colony, Central Circle-23, New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1160C Assessee By : Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Impugned Assessment Order Passed Under Sections 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Without Jurisdiction, Illegal & Bad In Law Since The Prerequisite Conditions For Initiating Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Not Fulfilled In The Present Case. 2. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Alleged Fair Rental Value At Rs.11,77,528/- & Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.11,77,528/- Under The Head Income From House Property. 3. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.7,00,000/- Received From M/S 2 Mission Viejo Estate Pvt. Ltd. Golden Techno Build Pvt. Ltd. As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. 4. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Aforesaid Addition Of Rs.7 Lacs Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Discharged Its Onus In Terms Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Ground No. 1 Is Not Pressed, Therefore, The Same Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

section 23 of I.T. Act. 17 Mission Viejo Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ld. AR's argument that the assessing officer should have accepted municipal valuation in absence of any further enquiry is also misplaced. In present case, the part of the property is rented to other companies which is acceptably used by Gambhirs for residential purpose. The assessing officer after considering

CIT vs. RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA

property. This has arisen in the following circumstances: 2011:DHC:4801-DB ITA No.1106 of 2011 Page 2 of 10 The assessee filed his return for the Assessment Year 2007-08 showing total income of `64,32,220/-. In the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee is proprietor of M/s. Arora Service Station

SWAR MAYA INFOTECH P.LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-22(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

house property' declared by the assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in making enhancement of income by disallowing an amount of Rs. 58,15,220/-claimed by the assessee under section