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)

section 54 to 54F as submitted by the assessee before him. He further submitted that Rohini property was mere a purchase of open plot admeasuring 332.50 sq mtrs. The assessee merely incurred expenditure of Rs. 6 lakhs on the above property. The details of construction cost Rs. 6 lakhs, which is stated by the assessee being the construction cost

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

property by the assessee through ‘Apartment Buyer Agreement’, amounted to “purchase ” of new house... 7. After perusing the aforesaid finding as well as the case laws and CBDT Circular discussed therein, we are of the view that booking of flat with the builder has to be treated as construction of flat by the assessee and hence period of three years

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI PRADEEP 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

property by the assessee through ‘Apartment Buyer Agreement’, amounted to “purchase ” of new house... 7. After perusing the aforesaid finding as well as the case laws and CBDT Circular discussed therein, we are of the view that booking of flat with the builder has to be treated as construction of flat by the assessee and hence period of three years

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.

section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the assessee has, within a period of 1 year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place, purchased a residential house in this case the transfer has taken place on 23/06/2007for the purchase of flat i.e. the date when the ownership was transferred

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - XV vs. BHARTI MISHRA

234 ITR 753 (All.) and Commissioner of Income Tax versus J.R. Subramanya Bhat, (1987) 165 ITR 571 (Kar). These two cases deal with interpretation of Section 54 of the Act. The said Section is pari materia to Section 54F. The only distinction being that Section 54 applies to investment in a new house where the original asset sold was/is residential

SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524 (SC). The assessee-company, therefore, submitted that when a sum of money is received with certain restrictions, obligations and duties to be performed, then it is only when these acts are duly complied with, income will accrue/arise to be taxable under sections 4 and 5 of the Income

SAAMAG CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524 (SC). The assessee-company, therefore, submitted that when a sum of money is received with certain restrictions, obligations and duties to be performed, then it is only when these acts are duly complied with, income will accrue/arise to be taxable under sections 4 and 5 of the Income

PYRAMID REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524 (SC). The assessee-company, therefore, submitted that when a sum of money is received with certain restrictions, obligations and duties to be performed, then it is only when these acts are duly complied with, income will accrue/arise to be taxable under sections 4 and 5 of the Income

SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524 (SC). The assessee-company, therefore, submitted that when a sum of money is received with certain restrictions, obligations and duties to be performed, then it is only when these acts are duly complied with, income will accrue/arise to be taxable under sections 4 and 5 of the Income

VARUN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-47(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

section 45. 7.2 Ergo, what can be claimed for exemption against the capital gain in the instant case is the cost of construction of new residential house and the cost of the new residential house would necessarily include the cost of land as clarified by the CBDT in circular No. 667 dated 18.10.1993. 8. So far as the controversy

DRAIPL-BRAHMAPUTRA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED (JV),NEW DELHI vs. TDS, CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Property Services Vs. TDS CPC TDS CPC Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad – 211010 A-7, Mahipalpur, Brahmaputra House, New Delhi-110037 Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Rakhi Vimal, SR. DR Date of hearing : 25.08.2020 Date of order : 31.08.2020 ORDER PER R.K PANDA, AM: This batch of appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the separate orders

BRAHMAPUTRA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. TDS, CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Property Services Vs. TDS CPC TDS CPC Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad – 211010 A-7, Mahipalpur, Brahmaputra House, New Delhi-110037 Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Rakhi Vimal, SR. DR Date of hearing : 25.08.2020 Date of order : 31.08.2020 ORDER PER R.K PANDA, AM: This batch of appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the separate orders

SUPREME BRAHMAPUTRA (JV),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Property Services Vs. TDS CPC TDS CPC Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad – 211010 A-7, Mahipalpur, Brahmaputra House, New Delhi-110037 Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Rakhi Vimal, SR. DR Date of hearing : 25.08.2020 Date of order : 31.08.2020 ORDER PER R.K PANDA, AM: This batch of appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the separate orders

M/S. CEAR INDIA MULTITRONICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

section 14 A read with Rule 8D of the Act. He submitted that assessee does not wish to press this ground. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands dismissed as not pressed. 6 (Cear India Multitronics Pvt. Ltd.) 10. Ground No. 1-2 is against treatment of rental income earned by assessee as Income from House Property

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property, business income and interest income. Assessee did not maintain any books of account. AIR information was received showing that the assessee has deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 66,41,000/- in his two bank accounts with Bank of India and Syndicate Bank during the financial year. Therefore, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The assessee

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

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

PHILLIP KOSHY,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.415/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Phillip Koshy, Dcit, C/O K B Chandna & Co., E-27, Vs. Central Circle-29, Ndse-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Armpk8500C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

property purchased one year prior to the transfer, which gave rise to the capital gain or may be in the alternative have expressly made the exemption in case of prior purchase, subject to purchase from any advance that might have been received for the transfer of the residential house which resulted in the capital gain. 23. At the cost