TUBE ROSE ESTATES PVT. LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result ground number one – three of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

249 ITR 47 cited by the learned and CIT – A and stated that that merely because income is attached to any more property it cannot be the sole factors for assessment of such income as income from property in what has to be seen is what is the primary object of the assessee while exploiting the property. He further referred

DELTA COLONIZERS LTD.,NEWDELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE -7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed on ground no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Act, for that year. 7. In assessment for A.Y 2013-14, while the rental income for use of property was accepted by the Assessing Officer as taxable under the head "Income from House Property", however brought to tax the rental income from use of amenities to be 'income from other sources', on the ground that

CORONET HOTEL SERVICES & SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire, show-caused the Assessee to furnish the detailed reasons with justification for filing of the revised return. 2.1 In response, the Assessee vide letter dated 24.11.2017, claimed as under: "The Assessee company has appointed an expert & experienced operating management agency M/s Four Seasons Hospitality Pvt. Ltd for carrying the business from

SHIVANI MADAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, NEW DELHI

In the result, the both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house property income in the hands of the assessee is not justified. Referring to section 26 of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that since shares of husband and wife who are co-owner of the property are definite and ascertainable, share of the assessee in the income from property being contribution of 5.4% only towards the purchase cost

SHIVANI MADAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, NEW DELHI

In the result, the both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house property income in the hands of the assessee is not justified. Referring to section 26 of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that since shares of husband and wife who are co-owner of the property are definite and ascertainable, share of the assessee in the income from property being contribution of 5.4% only towards the purchase cost

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

249 ITR 47 (Calcutta). In that case the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court observed that merely because income is attached to any immovable property that cannot be the sole factor for assessment of such income as income from property. What has to be seen is what was the primary object of the assessee while exploiting the property

SHIVANI MADAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

house property income in the hands of the assessee is not justified. Referring to section 26 of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that since shares of husband and wife who are co-owner of the property are definite and ascertainable, share of the assessee in the income from property being contribution of 5.4% only towards the purchase cost

GARG DYEING & PROCESSING INDUSTRIES vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

house property” as mandated by Section 22 of the Act. The relevant portions of the lease documents were read out to us to drive home the point. We do not think that anything turns on the fact as to at whose instance the machinery, plant or furniture were installed in the leased premises. The real test which has been applied

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

249 ITR 266 elucidated the principle relating to taxation of income in the following words: "...... It is well-settled that all receipts are not taxable under the Income-tax Act. Section 2(24) defines "income". It is no doubt an inclusive definition. However, a capital receipt 'is not income under section 2(24) unless it is chargeable

RAJPAL,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO WARD -2(3)(1), BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

House No.35, Ibrahimpur, Bulandshahr. Junedpur Maujpur, Khurja Junction, Distt. Bulandshahr. TAN/PAN: CWPPR7506D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 27 04 2023 Date of pronouncement: 27 04 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner

MADHULIKA MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 5(1)(5), NOIDA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usvs. Ito Madhulika Mishra B-1501, Tower-4, Enchante, Ward – 5(1)(5) Lodha New Cuffe Parade, Noida Wadala East, Mumbai-400 022 Pan No. Asppm 9325 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ganesh Raj Gopalen, C.A. & Shri Kirit Vasan. R. C.A. Revenue By Shri Jatender Kumar Kale, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.08.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

property as sale thereof. 6. The plea of the assessee for non workability of impediment under section 249(4)(b) of the Act appears quite convincing in the facts of the case. In this circumstances, narrated on behalf of the assessee appeal of the assessee is found to be maintainable before the CIT(A). 7. We now advert

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

House, UK was purchased for GBP 58,50,000 in FY 2014-15. 4.4.20 CCL has not done any substantive business apart from investment in above properties. The above details clearly highlight the fact that the 16 ITAs No.405 to 411; 412 to 418/Del/2021; ITA No.153/Del/2022; 716/Del/2021; 165/Del/2022; 163/Del/2022; 715/Del/2021; 164/Del/2022; BMA No.5 to 7/Del/2022; and BMA No.8 to 10/Del/2022

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

249 (1st Floor), Preet Vihar, Delhi purchased vide registered sale deed dated 13/10/2017 against sale of old residential house B – 131, sector – 5, Noida on 06/02/2017 for Rs.1,60,00,000/-. The Ld. Counsel invited reference to para 6 of the assessment order are reproduced below: “As evident from above, assessee’s share in the property purchased on 13/10/2017 comes

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

property, from which income was generated was the trust property; the sale deed in favour of the assessee showed that he purchased the property as a trustee and there was a subsequent deed creating a trust which recorded a corpus of Rs. 2 lakhs left in the hands of the assessee. In this case it was held that

MANISHA ARORA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-29(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Manisha Arora, Income Tax Officer, C-4, Greater Kailash, Ward-29(1), South Delhi Vs Delhi Delhi-110048 Pan-Adtpa8801D Assessee Revenue

section 249(2) of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3.1. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted a synopsis and a sequence of events with respect to the facts of the case and the development thereafter as under:- 4 ITA No.2274/Del/2024 3.3. During the appellate proceedings, the AR filed a copy of death certificate dated

KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD vs. DEPUTY CIT

The appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs

249 (Mum) and urged that payment of lease premium creates an asset of enduring value, which cannot be amortized as the assesse seeks to do in this case. 11. In the earliest decision of the Supreme Court, i.e. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd (supra) the proper test applicable in such cases, to determine whether an expenditure is capital or revenue

KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD vs. DEPUTY CIT

The appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs

249 (Mum) and urged that payment of lease premium creates an asset of enduring value, which cannot be amortized as the assesse seeks to do in this case. 11. In the earliest decision of the Supreme Court, i.e. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd (supra) the proper test applicable in such cases, to determine whether an expenditure is capital or revenue

VIVEK VIHAR RWA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. K. Narasimha Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Vivek Vihar Rwa Vs. Dcit Awho, Sector – 82, Noida Circle – 2, Uttar Pradesh – 201 301 Noida Pan No. Aaaav 8060 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabh Jindal, C.A. Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R.

House Property and consequently disallowing the deduction of Rs.5,01,163/- allowed u/s 24(a). 3. The appellant craves the right to add, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 4. Before us, Learned AR at the outset, pointing to Ground No.1 submitted that CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits