ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ATRIA PARTNER, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year : 2010-11 A.C.I.T., Circle 31(1) Vs. M/S. Atria Partners, New Delhi. 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. [Pan : Aahfa 1305 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.A. Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2016 Order Per L.P. Sahu: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.11.2013 Passed By The Learned Cit(A)-Xxvi, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On The Following Grounds :

24a of the IT Act, as the property was constructed and developed by the partners /DLF group. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in directing that assess rental income of the assessee should be assessed under the head “income from house property” and not as business income. 2 ITA No.711/Del./2014 3. The CIT(A) has erred in restricting

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

section 23(1)(a) of the Act. Since the assessee did not provide any expected reasonable rent of the property, he assessed the annual letting value at 8% of the cost of property as shown in the sale deed and computed income from house property as under: 2 Value of property as per details submitted by the assessee

SH. SUNIL BHALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisunil Bhalla, Vs. Ito, R/O. W3/2, Western Avenue, Ward-9(2), Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Afgpb9442N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 24A of the income tax act. The lower authorities have given a reason that the house tax receipts shows that the assessee’s house is self occupied and not rented. The assessee could not give any plausible explanation for the same. Further, the assessee also could not produce any confirmation from the tenants of the house property

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RENKEN PARTNER, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Asstt.Commissioner Of Inome Tax, Vs Renken Partner, Circle 31(1), Dlf Centre, 9Th Floor, New Delhi. Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Pan: Aaffr2063P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri O.P. Meena, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement:

24a of the IT Act as the property was constructed and developed by the partners/ DLF group of the firm. 2. The CIT (A) has erred in directing that rental income of the assessee should be assessed under the head 'income form house property' and not as business income. I.T.A. No. 707/Del/2014 Assessment Year

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

M/S. S. POWER (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

house property’. Eventually, the assessment was completed at a total income of Rs.15,21,230/-. The assessee succeeded partly before the ld. CIT(A). 3. First ground of the assessee’s appeal assails the initiation of re- assessment proceedings. In order to consider the rival submissions made in this behalf, it is sine qua non to note down the reasons

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PLAZA PARTNER, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri G.D. Agarwal, Hon’Ble V.P. & Sri C.M.Garg, Jm

24a of the IT Act, as the property was constructed and developed by the partners/ DLF group of the firm. 2 Plaza Partner 2. The CIT(A) has erred in directing that rental income fo the assessee should be asse4ssed under the head ‘income form house property’ and not as business income. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in restricting

ABHAY KUMAR MITTAL (INDL),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-72(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3385/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Abhay Kumar Mittal, Vs Dcit, Flat No. A-42, Himalayan Circle-72(1), Residency, Plot No. 10, Sector- New Delhi 22, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajpm3747K Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Mahana, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2022

Section 27 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the CIT (A), further misconceived the provisions of the Act, to state that accommodation can’t be shared if one claims that he or she is paying rent. There must be complete house or a part of house with clear demarcated portion in which the one is staying in rent

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. PLAZA PARTNER, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4380/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Acit, Vs Plaza Partner, Dlf Centre, 9Th Floor, Sansad Circle-31(1), New Delhi Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Axmpk7608P Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Mrs. Shefali Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 21.05.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi.

24a of the IT Act. 2. The CIT (A) has erred in directing that rental income of the assessee should be assessed under the head 'income form house property' and not as business income without appreciating the fact that the assessee is engaged in organized business of letting out commercial property to various entities. 2 Plaza Partner

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

24A (Contribution Report) under Rule 85B of Conduct of Elections Rule, 1961, before the due date for furnishing the IT return of that financial year under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the Election Commission. The form calls for details like name, PAN, amount donated, mode of donations etc., of all the donors donating amounts more than

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

24A (Contribution Report) under Rule 85B of Conduct of Elections Rule, 1961, before the due date for furnishing the IT return of that financial year under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the Election Commission. The form calls for details like name, PAN, amount donated, mode of donations etc., of all the donors donating amounts more than

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

24A (Contribution Report) under Rule 85B of Conduct of Elections Rule, 1961, before the due date for furnishing the IT return of that financial year under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the Election Commission. The form calls for details like name, PAN, amount donated, mode of donations etc., of all the donors donating amounts more than

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

24A (Contribution Report) under Rule 85B of Conduct of Elections Rule, 1961, before the due date for furnishing the IT return of that financial year under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the Election Commission. The form calls for details like name, PAN, amount donated, mode of donations etc., of all the donors donating amounts more than

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

24A (Contribution Report) under Rule 85B of Conduct of Elections Rule, 1961, before the due date for furnishing the IT return of that financial year under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the Election Commission. The form calls for details like name, PAN, amount donated, mode of donations etc., of all the donors donating amounts more than

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

24A (Contribution Report) under Rule 85B of Conduct of Elections Rule, 1961, before the due date for furnishing the IT return of that financial year under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the Election Commission. The form calls for details like name, PAN, amount donated, mode of donations etc., of all the donors donating amounts more than

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

24A (Contribution Report) under Rule 85B of Conduct of Elections Rule, 1961, before the due date for furnishing the IT return of that financial year under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the Election Commission. The form calls for details like name, PAN, amount donated, mode of donations etc., of all the donors donating amounts more than

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

24A (Contribution Report) under Rule 85B of Conduct of Elections Rule, 1961, before the due date for furnishing the IT return of that financial year under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the Election Commission. The form calls for details like name, PAN, amount donated, mode of donations etc., of all the donors donating amounts more than