MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

House Property' instead of „Income from Other Sources‟ completely disregarding the provisions of Section 56 of the Act and decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. a. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO and Hon‟ble DRP erred in not allowing proportionate tax depreciation and expenses under section ('u/s') 57 of the Act amounting to Rs.16

WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

house property by the Ld. CIT(A)-1 and as income from other sources by the Ld. AO. We have adjudicated this issue while dealing with ground No. 4 wherein we have held that the said sum forms part of income from Business Centre run by the assessee which is assessable as Business income. The assessment be modified accordingly

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

house property, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83. Mr Singh is right

JYOTI JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ground no. 5 of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.4983/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Jyoti Jain, 25/94, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi 110007 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan No: Adipj-0775-G बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(2), New Delhi

property bearing no. 5/21, Roop Nagar, Delhi comprising of ground floor plus one half share of first floor and one half share in the second floor. Now, the assessee vide sale deed dated 22.04.2013 purchased remaining part of residential house i.e. one half share of first floor and one half share in the second floor and claimed deduction

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

234B of the Income Tax Act.” 2. These are four appeals filed by the assessee and three appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A) for the following assessment years: Appeals filed by the assessee: AY 2017-18 – ITA No. 2632/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 – ITA No. 2633/Del/2022

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

234B of the Income Tax Act.” 2. These are four appeals filed by the assessee and three appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A) for the following assessment years: Appeals filed by the assessee: AY 2017-18 – ITA No. 2632/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 – ITA No. 2633/Del/2022

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

234B of the Income Tax Act.” 2. These are four appeals filed by the assessee and three appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A) for the following assessment years: Appeals filed by the assessee: AY 2017-18 – ITA No. 2632/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 – ITA No. 2633/Del/2022

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

234B of the Income Tax Act.” 2. These are four appeals filed by the assessee and three appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A) for the following assessment years: Appeals filed by the assessee: AY 2017-18 – ITA No. 2632/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 – ITA No. 2633/Del/2022

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

234B of the Income Tax Act.” 2. These are four appeals filed by the assessee and three appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A) for the following assessment years: Appeals filed by the assessee: AY 2017-18 – ITA No. 2632/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 – ITA No. 2633/Del/2022

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

234B of the Income Tax Act.” 2. These are four appeals filed by the assessee and three appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A) for the following assessment years: Appeals filed by the assessee: AY 2017-18 – ITA No. 2632/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 – ITA No. 2633/Del/2022

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

234B of the Income Tax Act.” 2. These are four appeals filed by the assessee and three appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A) for the following assessment years: Appeals filed by the assessee: AY 2017-18 – ITA No. 2632/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 – ITA No. 2633/Del/2022

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

234B of the Act. 8. That the interest under section 234A had been charged at Rs. 201623 stating that no return was filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act dated 21.04.2013. It may be mentioned that for filing settlement application under section 245C 1 of the Act, there was no requirement to file the return

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

234B of the Act. 8. That the interest under section 234A had been charged at Rs. 201623 stating that no return was filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act dated 21.04.2013. It may be mentioned that for filing settlement application under section 245C 1 of the Act, there was no requirement to file the return

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

234B of the Act. 8. That the interest under section 234A had been charged at Rs. 201623 stating that no return was filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act dated 21.04.2013. It may be mentioned that for filing settlement application under section 245C 1 of the Act, there was no requirement to file the return

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

234B of the Act. 8. That the interest under section 234A had been charged at Rs. 201623 stating that no return was filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act dated 21.04.2013. It may be mentioned that for filing settlement application under section 245C 1 of the Act, there was no requirement to file the return

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

house property. 5. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not deciding the legal and factual issues arising out of the adjustments made vide intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and merely repeating the additions made u/s 143(1) when it's a well settled law that assessment made u/s 143(1) subsumes into

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

house property. 5. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not deciding the legal and factual issues arising out of the adjustments made vide intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and merely repeating the additions made u/s 143(1) when it's a well settled law that assessment made u/s 143(1) subsumes into

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 63(1), NEW DELHI

house property.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Pr.CIT) while granting approval. The approval was granted mechanically, without due application of mind to the facts and law, violating mandatory conditions under Section 151. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and notices were quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

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

234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed his return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring