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

JAGDISH CHANDRA MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt.Year: 2008-09

section 244A and assessee is entitled to interest on Rs.2,11,469 from 04-12-2012 till the date of grant of refund of Rs.211,469.” I.T.A. No. 5651/D/2013 Assessment year 2008-09 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2008-09 on 30.07.2008 vide acknowledgement no. 0110 claiming

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

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

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 tax. (b) The taxability of the property u/s 22 is that the said property shall not be in use of business of the assessee itself, the profit

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

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

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 tax. (b) The taxability of the property u/s 22 is that the said property shall not be in use of business of the assessee itself, the profit

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

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

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 tax. (b) The taxability of the property u/s 22 is that the said property shall not be in use of business of the assessee itself, the profit

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

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

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 tax. (b) The taxability of the property u/s 22 is that the said property shall not be in use of business of the assessee itself, the profit

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

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

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 tax. (b) The taxability of the property u/s 22 is that the said property shall not be in use of business of the assessee itself, the profit

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

244A of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 5. In ground of appeal no.1 to 4, the assessee has challenged the order of ld. CIT(A) in treating the appeal filed by the assessee before him as infructuous, illegal

GURBAKSHISH SINGH BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

244A of the Act. 4. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT perused the assessment record and found that the assessee has claimed capital loss of Rs.5,76,814/- on one of the properties sold in the computation of income. Further, The market value of such property was Rs. 68,50,000 - whereas the property was sold at Rs. 24,00,000/-which

M/S WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

house property. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of assessment in treating the profit arising from the sale of flats as short term capital gain as against business income offered by the assessee failing to appreciate that the assessee had been since engaged in the Real Estate and was trading in the Real Estate

CIENA COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result grounds raised by assessee for the year under consideration stands allowed

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

House, Suite/Unit No.1120-1121, 11th Floor, Tower A, DLF Towers, Jasola, Jasola District Centre New Delhi 110 025 PAN: AADCC8462C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 14.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 27th September, 2018 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present appeals have been filed by assessee against

CIENA COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result grounds raised by assessee for the year under consideration stands allowed

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

House, Suite/Unit No.1120-1121, 11th Floor, Tower A, DLF Towers, Jasola, Jasola District Centre New Delhi 110 025 PAN: AADCC8462C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 14.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 27th September, 2018 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present appeals have been filed by assessee against

CIENA COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result grounds raised by assessee for the year under consideration stands allowed

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

House, Suite/Unit No.1120-1121, 11th Floor, Tower A, DLF Towers, Jasola, Jasola District Centre New Delhi 110 025 PAN: AADCC8462C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 14.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 27th September, 2018 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present appeals have been filed by assessee against

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. TALBROS (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

244A of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. Of course, the assessee would be liable to pay interest on late deposit of TDS or penalty for the same. 12. Naresh Kumar, the respondent assessee succeeded in the first appeal and has succeeded before the Tribunal. 13. Failure to deduct or pay TDS results

Commissioner of Income Tax XIII

244A of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. Of course, the assessee would be liable to pay interest on late deposit of TDS or penalty for the same. 12. Naresh Kumar, the respondent assessee succeeded in the first appeal and has succeeded before the Tribunal. 13. Failure to deduct or pay TDS results

GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground, no

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

house and were essential for Appellant's business operations; c) That all intra-group services were in the nature of shareholder and stewardship activities, ignoring the fact that all the shareholder and stewardship activities were separately identified by the AEs and no amount for such activities had been paid by the Appellant. d) That the Appellant failed to satisfactorily explain

GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground, no

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

house and were essential for Appellant's business operations; c) That all intra-group services were in the nature of shareholder and stewardship activities, ignoring the fact that all the shareholder and stewardship activities were separately identified by the AEs and no amount for such activities had been paid by the Appellant. d) That the Appellant failed to satisfactorily explain

ESS DISTRIBUTION MAURITIUS S.N.C. ET COMPAGNIE,MAURITIUS vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ess Distribution (Mauritius) Vs. Ddit, Snc Et Compagnie, Circle-1(2), 605, St. James Court, International Taxation, St. Denies Street Port Louis, New Delhi Mauritius Pan :Aabfe6800F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ess Distribution (Mauritius) Vs. Adit/Dcit/Acit, Snc Et Compagnie, Range - 1, 5Th Floor, Ebene Esplanade, International Taxation, 24 Cyber City, Ebene, New Delhi Mauritius Pan :Aabfe6800F (Appellant) (Respondent)

House New Delhi Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan (Gate No. 2, 2nd Floor), Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi PAN :AABFE6800F (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT, Vs. ESS Distribution (Mauritius) Circle-1(2)(2), SNC et Compagnie, International Taxation, 605, St. James Court, New Delhi St. Denis Street Port Louis, Mauritius PAN :AABFE6800F (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year