VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

house property (refer pg 328-329 of paper book); (iii) Computation of Total Income for AY 2021-22 and Form 26AS (refer pg 331-334 of paper book); (iv) Possession Letter dated 31.07.2021 along with declaration (refer pg 206-207 of paper book) and (v) Receipt cum Confirmation letter from Mrs. Shahista Gehlot (refer pg 330 of paper book

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

properties claimed as being vacant farm lands needs verification by the AO for ascertaining the correctness of the claim that no house/building was constructed on such lands. Thus the issue is hereby, restored to AO. If it is found true that during the relevant time, no house property/commercial space were constructed thereon. No addition would be called for. Thus, Ground

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

house property" or "Income from other sources" or any income by way of voluntary contributions received by a political party from any person shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of such political party : Provided that— ( a) such political party keeps and maintains such books of account and other documents as would enable the Assessing

RAJNI KUMAR WIFE OF SHRI BRIG. NARENDER KUMAR H.NO.394, SECTOR-21, GURGAONN,GURGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrajni Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), W/O Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ayypk1781A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & The Assessment Order Was Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

house was accordingly issued after 4 years – Whether since assessee had invested money within stipulated period and delay in obtaining occupancy certificate was beyond control of assessee, assessee would be entitled for deduction under section 54 – Held, yes [Para 3] [In favour of assessee].” f) Similarly we also rely upon the following case laws: i) In the case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –V vs. KAPIL NAGPAL

245 ITR 727 (Del) and held that “for the purpose of attracting the provisions of Section 54 of the IT Act, it is not necessary that the Assessee should become the owner of the property. Section 54 of 2015:DHC:7552-DB ITA 609/2014 Page 14 of 15 the said Act speaks of purchase. Moreover, the ownership of the property

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

house, 7 then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place……” 3. The Assessing Officer, the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 on the ground that he did not become

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)

245 ITR 727 (Del), it is held that on payment of substantial amount in terms of purchase agreement within 04 days of sale of his old house, assessee acquired substantial domain over new residential flat within specified period, it could be said that assessee complied with requirements of section 54. Merely because builder failed to handover possession of the flat

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

house property’. The AO found no error in the details so filed nor Ld. PCIT has pointed out any error or any occasion where the tax could not be less charged therefore, it cannot be held that the order is pre-judicial to the interest of Revenue or erroneous and accordingly, the direction of Ld.PCIT to make verifications

ACIT, CIRCLE CC 15, NEW DELHI vs. ALKA MENDIRATTA , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

house of the appellant maintained by her husband wherein the higher sales consideration than the amounts in the sale deed was mentioned. In the case of the appellant, there is no evidence found relating to appellant to suggest that the purchase consideration of the property was higher. The seized ATS does not relate to the transaction of the appellant

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. YASH PAL MENDIRATTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

house of the appellant maintained by her husband wherein the higher sales consideration than the amounts in the sale deed was mentioned. In the case of the appellant, there is no evidence found relating to appellant to suggest that the purchase consideration of the property was higher. The seized ATS does not relate to the transaction of the appellant

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

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.\n7.\nThat 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

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

house within a period of three years from the date of the original asset. 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) concurred with the finding of the Assessing Officer. She also rejected the finding of the Ld. Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) in the case of other two co-owners i.e. Mrs Jasvinder Kaur and Mrs Harsawer Kaur. The relevant finding

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

245 (Del), the Court reiterated the well settled position that, where the CBDT circular has not been withdrawn and is beneficial to the Assessee, it would be binding on the AO and other Revenue authorities. The Court was merely reiterating what has been held in a large number of cases including Navnitlal C. Zaveri v. K.K. Sen (supra

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

245 (Del), the Court reiterated the well settled position that, where the CBDT circular has not been withdrawn and is beneficial to the Assessee, it would be binding on the AO and other Revenue authorities. The Court was merely reiterating what has been held in a large number of cases including Navnitlal C. Zaveri v. K.K. Sen (supra

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

245 (Del), the Court reiterated the well settled position that, where the CBDT circular has not been withdrawn and is beneficial to the Assessee, it would be binding on the AO and other Revenue authorities. The Court was merely reiterating what has been held in a large number of cases including Navnitlal C. Zaveri v. K.K. Sen (supra

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

house where is a small room allotted to Sh. Mishra the cashier wherein the cash belonging to my business concerns is kept. Q. 48 Do you want to say anything else ? Ans. No, nothing. Signed 26.11.99 I have read over the above statement and understood the same . I found that it has been correctly recorded. The above statement has been

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