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

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

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

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 income

M/S. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result ground number 4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and ground number [3]

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shipra Estate Ltd, Vs Acit, C/O. Pradeep & Co, Circle-2, Tax Advocates, Ghaziabad 7, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Pan: Aaccs6116J (Appellant) (Respondent)

234C of the Act. 11 Thus, assessee aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) has preferred this appeal before us. 12 The ld. AR on the issue of completion of the housing project for claiming deduction u/s 80 IB (10) of the act, submitted that appellant obtained the approval on 26.09.2006 for developing housing project in the name

JINDAL SAW LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

section 43B. 2. A. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that scrap sales of Rs 4,90,87,775/- cannot be reduced from cost of raw material but would form part of the total turnover of the appellant. ITA Nos.826 & 1000/Del/2016, 4693 & 4760/Del/2019 & 504/Del/2022 B. The decision

JINDAL SAW LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

section 43B. 2. A. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that scrap sales of Rs 4,90,87,775/- cannot be reduced from cost of raw material but would form part of the total turnover of the appellant. ITA Nos.826 & 1000/Del/2016, 4693 & 4760/Del/2019 & 504/Del/2022 B. The decision

DCIT CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI vs. JINDAL SAW LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

section 43B. 2. A. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that scrap sales of Rs 4,90,87,775/- cannot be reduced from cost of raw material but would form part of the total turnover of the appellant. ITA Nos.826 & 1000/Del/2016, 4693 & 4760/Del/2019 & 504/Del/2022 B. The decision

SHRI KAMAL KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Kamal Kumar Vs. Acit, 13, Ashoka Avenue Road, Central Circle-26, E-2, Dlf Farms Chattarpur, Room No. 323, Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property taking a view that tax is imposable on vacant property even though no rent is realized by interpreting section 23(1)(c) that benefit of the vacancy allowance cannot be granted if property is not let out during previous year. There is no dispute between Ld.AO and assessee that the property was vacant and no rent was realized

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest

SANJAY BANSAL,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(2)(1),GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

housing loan holding it to be inadmissible under section 48, and further disallowed Rs.1,40,877/- claimed as cost of acquisition for want of supporting evidence. Consequently, the assessed income was determined at Rs.69,48,472/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated and interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D was charged as per law. 4. Aggrieved

FIL INDIA BUSINESS & RESEARCH PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), C.R BUILDING , DELHI

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

House,\nBarakhamba Road,\nNew Delhi-110001\nPAN:AABCF1572C\n(Appellant)\nDCIT,\nNational Faceless\nVs. Assessment Centre,\nDelhi.\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nShri Ravi Sharma, Adv. &\nShri Kshitij Bansal, CA\nDepartment by\nShri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR\n\nDate of hearing\n03.04.2025\nDate of pronouncement\n25.06.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:\n\nThe present appeal is filed

HONDA TRADING ASIA CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NOIDA

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

House, Noida Wire Less Road, Lumpini, Pathum Wan, Bangkok, Thailand PAN: AACCH3273K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. & Kamal Arya, Adv. Revenue by Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR & Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR & Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 05.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 23.07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeals have been filed

HONDA TRADING ASIA CO. LTD.,THAILAND vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION CIRCLE, NOIDA

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

House, Noida Wire Less Road, Lumpini, Pathum Wan, Bangkok, Thailand PAN: AACCH3273K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. & Kamal Arya, Adv. Revenue by Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR & Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR & Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 05.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 23.07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeals have been filed

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

house property income is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

house property income is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest

SUMAN KISHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

house property income is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest