M/S. MANJEET KAUR MEMORIAL PREMIER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

house property. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining that there is no application / utilization of expenses against the receipt for the purpose of charitable activity u/s. 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the interest charged u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income

MADHURITTU PURI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2)(2) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

house property as adopted by the AO/DRP at Rs.1,03,43,551 for Appellant’s 1/3rd share s inadequate and the addition of Rs.2,23,23,116 as made towards long term capital gain is very excessive. 6. That the levy of interest under section 234D

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs C.J. International Hotels Ltd., Circle-3(1), Le Meridian, Windsor Place, New Delhi. Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacc0174E) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2010-11 C.J. International Hotels Ltd., Vs Dcit, New Delhi. Circle-3(1), New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. Dr Department By: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ca

section 147 are not met rendering the assessment orders passed thereto as bad in law. 1.2 That on facts and in law the CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO as a result of a mere change of opinion on similar set of facts. 1.3 That on facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTEL LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs C.J. International Hotels Ltd., Circle-3(1), Le Meridian, Windsor Place, New Delhi. Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacc0174E) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2010-11 C.J. International Hotels Ltd., Vs Dcit, New Delhi. Circle-3(1), New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. Dr Department By: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ca

section 147 are not met rendering the assessment orders passed thereto as bad in law. 1.2 That on facts and in law the CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO as a result of a mere change of opinion on similar set of facts. 1.3 That on facts

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs C.J. International Hotels Ltd., Circle-3(1), Le Meridian, Windsor Place, New Delhi. Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacc0174E) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2010-11 C.J. International Hotels Ltd., Vs Dcit, New Delhi. Circle-3(1), New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. Dr Department By: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ca

section 147 are not met rendering the assessment orders passed thereto as bad in law. 1.2 That on facts and in law the CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO as a result of a mere change of opinion on similar set of facts. 1.3 That on facts

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Annual value of property of which the assessee is owner is taxable under the head income from House Property except the portion of the property used by the owner of the property for the purposes of its own business or profession, the profit of which are chargeable to income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Annual value of property of which the assessee is owner is taxable under the head income from House Property except the portion of the property used by the owner of the property for the purposes of its own business or profession, the profit of which are chargeable to income

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Annual value of property of which the assessee is owner is taxable under the head income from House Property except the portion of the property used by the owner of the property for the purposes of its own business or profession, the profit of which are chargeable to income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Annual value of property of which the assessee is owner is taxable under the head income from House Property except the portion of the property used by the owner of the property for the purposes of its own business or profession, the profit of which are chargeable to income

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Annual value of property of which the assessee is owner is taxable under the head income from House Property except the portion of the property used by the owner of the property for the purposes of its own business or profession, the profit of which are chargeable to income

SHRI UDAY SOOD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Shri Uday Sood Vs. The I.T.O 1005, Sector – 15 Ward – 8(2) Faridabad, Haryana New Delhi Pan : Adzps 5454 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property within the time allowed under the law and in respect of which documentary evidence were also filed. Deduction u/s 54F of the Act has been claimed in the return in accordance with the provisions of law. It was stated that construction of flat in Lotus Boullward Project of Cloud & Projects Pvt Ltd is complete and is now ready

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234D of the Act without appreciating that no refund was granted to the Appellant. 9. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234D of the Act without appreciating that no refund was granted to the Appellant. 9. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234D of the Act without appreciating that no refund was granted to the Appellant. 9. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income

RAM KISHORE RATHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 53(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 308/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Kishore Rathore, Vs. Acit, Circle-53(1), C/O M/S Rra Taxindia New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Pan:Aaapr4260P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

house Property and framing the impugned reassessment order are bad in law, illegal, unjustified, barred by limitation, contrary to facts & law and based upon recording of incorrect facts and finding, without giving adequate opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed. 10. That having regard to the facts and circumstances

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

234D of the Income Tax Act. 7. That on facts and in law the order of assessment u/s 143(3) passed by the Assessing Officer {hereinafter referred to as the “AO”} is bad in law and void ab-initio. 7. That on facts and in law the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax {hereinafter referred

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

House Property’ instead of ‘Income from Other Sources’ completely disregarding the provisions of Section 56 of the Act and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court Judgment in the case of Garq Dyeing & Processing Industries vs. ACIT (2012) (ITA 319/2012) (Del) (Departmental SLP has been dismissed by Supreme Court). 15.1 That on the facts

M/S. VOITH PAPER GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

234D as the same is not attracted on facts. Reliance made by the learned AO/DRP on decision of DIT vs Alcatel Lucent (ITA Nos.327/2012, 338/2012 and 339/2012) and DIT vs Alcatel Lucent World Services Inc (ITA Nos.326/2012, 329/2012 and 336/2012) is not justified, as the same is not applicable on facts. 5. That the learned A.O. has erred in initiating

SH. SUDHIR KUMAR MITTAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2011-12

house property let out to M/s Supreme Textile is Rs. 1,80,000/- @Rs. 15000/- per month where as the AO worked out the AV at Rs. 65,10,000/- and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,13,37,290/- vide order dated 30.10.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Against the assessment order, the Assessee