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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

house property’ as per provisions of law. Ground No. 3 is, accordingly, allowed. 17. Ground No. 4 relates to MAT credit claimed amounting to Rs. 72,30,482/-. 18. We are of the considered opinion that MAT credit has to be allowed to the assessee as per the provisions of law and after considering the provisions and the assessment history

M/S. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

house property’ as per provisions of law. Ground No. 3 is, accordingly, allowed. 17. Ground No. 4 relates to MAT credit claimed amounting to Rs. 72,30,482/-. 18. We are of the considered opinion that MAT credit has to be allowed to the assessee as per the provisions of law and after considering the provisions and the assessment history

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MANI KAKKAR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

house was sold for `2.49 crores. On a perusal of the sale documents, the Assessing Officer found that there was no reference therein to the superstructure which existed on the land. According to him, since material facts were not disclosed to the registering authority and the documents did not mention the fact that there was a super structure

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASHA KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

house was sold for `2.49 crores. On a perusal of the sale documents, the Assessing Officer found that there was no reference therein to the superstructure which existed on the land. According to him, since material facts were not disclosed to the registering authority and the documents did not mention the fact that there was a super structure

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NITIN KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

house was sold for `2.49 crores. On a perusal of the sale documents, the Assessing Officer found that there was no reference therein to the superstructure which existed on the land. According to him, since material facts were not disclosed to the registering authority and the documents did not mention the fact that there was a super structure

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ROHIT KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

house was sold for `2.49 crores. On a perusal of the sale documents, the Assessing Officer found that there was no reference therein to the superstructure which existed on the land. According to him, since material facts were not disclosed to the registering authority and the documents did not mention the fact that there was a super structure

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

house was sold for `2.49 crores. On a perusal of the sale documents, the Assessing Officer found that there was no reference therein to the superstructure which existed on the land. According to him, since material facts were not disclosed to the registering authority and the documents did not mention the fact that there was a super structure

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KEDAR NATH GUPTA

house was sold for `2.49 crores. On a perusal of the sale documents, the Assessing Officer found that there was no reference therein to the superstructure which existed on the land. According to him, since material facts were not disclosed to the registering authority and the documents did not mention the fact that there was a super structure

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), NEW DELHI vs. C J INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

house property and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision dated 5th February, 2016 in the assessee’s own case for Assessment Year

ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), NEW DELHI vs. C J INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD, NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

house property and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision dated 5th February, 2016 in the assessee’s own case for Assessment Year