M/S. IDEAL HITECH ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house property’, the computation of notional income by invoking section 23(1)(a) of the Act by lower authorities is based on fundamental misconception and unsustainable. 2.1 That Ld. CIT(Appeals) and Ld. Assessing Officer have failed to appreciate that the assessee was 3 entitled to vacancy allowance and as such, income alternatively had to be computed under section

SH. BRIJ BHUSHAN TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

house property and income from other sources. During the assessee has declared a gross profit of Rs. 1,32,13,389/- on the total turnover of Rs. 6,47,26,704/- yielding a g.p. rate of 20.41% in comparison to the immediate preceding year’s gp rate of 23.52% on the total turnover of Rs. 4,93,62,1785/-. There

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of Order dated 09.12.2018 of the Learned Assessing Officer/Learned Assistant 2 Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle 19(2), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. AO”) under Sections 143(3) Act for assessment year 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

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

250 (Kar.) and orders co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad in the case of ITO vs. P.N. Shukla [1985] 14 ITD 105 (All.) and at Hyderabad in the case of DDIT vs. Shri G. Raghuram ITA No. 6/Hyd/2010, submitted that where the assessee made to agreements one for let out of the property and another for providing amenities

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

House Property\". Therefore, in this way\nevery case of \"letting out buildings alongwith other amenities\" would\nautomatically fall in the income from business and it will not be merely\nrestricted to Software Technology Park only as has been wrongly\nunderstood by Id. PCIT. It is important to mention here that the AO after\ndetailed enquiries and verification on completed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16. 2 I.T.A. No. 4613/Del/2019 M/s Coronet Hotel Services & Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. 2. In the instant case, the Assessee declared its income at Rs. (-) 10,17,441/- by filing its original return of income on dated 27.09.2015, wherein the revenue receipts generated from operations of “Hotel/Resort

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2002-03

house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, and then secondly, by computing income in terms of section 92 of the Act, by making addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment, if warranted. The additional ground raised under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, is, therefore, dismissed

AMIT DHINGRA,DELHI vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

250/-. Subsequently, the amounting to Rs.9,08,104/- wherein he has claimed deduction u/s 24(a) of Rs.54,000/- and section 24(b) of Rs.10,34,104/-. From the Sale Deed, he noted that the property is jointly owned by the assessee and his wife Smt. Arti Sharma. The Assessing Officer, referring to the provisions of section 26, held that

AMIT DHINGRA,DELHI vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

250/-. Subsequently, the amounting to Rs.9,08,104/- wherein he has claimed deduction u/s 24(a) of Rs.54,000/- and section 24(b) of Rs.10,34,104/-. From the Sale Deed, he noted that the property is jointly owned by the assessee and his wife Smt. Arti Sharma. The Assessing Officer, referring to the provisions of section 26, held that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

House Property". That in the case of the appellant the L.D A.O has claimed the Residential Property at "New Friends Colony, New Delhi" to be owned by the appellant, though on facts the said property has been claimed as a "Self Occupied" property by the mother of the appellant in her return filed by her Legal heir. The copy

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

House Property". That in the case of the appellant the L.D A.O has claimed the Residential Property at "New Friends Colony, New Delhi" to be owned by the appellant, though on facts the said property has been claimed as a "Self Occupied" property by the mother of the appellant in her return filed by her Legal heir. The copy

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CETRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

House Property". Therefore, in this way\nevery case of "letting out buildings alongwith other amenities" would\nautomatically fall in the income from business and it will not be merely\nrestricted to Software Technology Park only as has been wrongly\nunderstood by Id. PCIT. It is important to mention here that the AO after\ndetailed enquiries and verification on completed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

House Property\". Therefore, in this way\nevery case of \"letting out buildings alongwith other amenities\" would\nautomatically fall in the income from business and it will not be merely\nrestricted to Software Technology Park only as has been wrongly\nunderstood by Id. PCIT. It is important to mention here that the AO after\ndetailed enquiries and verification on completed

SHRI M M CREATIONS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai & M. M. Creations Acit T-481A, Baljeet Nagar Circle-24(1), Behind Patel Nagar Police Station New Delhi Vs. New Delhi. Pan : Aaefm9802A (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property, as it does not involve any commercial activity. In the paper book Ld. AR placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Kayram Hotels Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2015) 373 ITR 494 and decision Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd., reported

MRS. KUSUM LATA JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Acit, Central Circle-12, New Mrs. Kusum Lata Jain, G-19, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaipj1375K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. M.P. Rastogi & P.N. Shastri, Advocates Respondent By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 15/06/2012 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxxi, New Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit-(A)’] For Assessment Year 2007-08 Raising Following Grounds:

section 23(2) of the Act, irrespective of the fact whether the property was 5 residential or commercial. Accordingly, the ground No. 1.1 of the appeal is dismissed. 9. In ground No.1.2, the assessee has challenged the finding of the Ld. CIT-(A), that it was a commercial property in the year under consideration, on the basis of conversion charges

DCIT, CC-4, NEW DELHI vs. MG HOUSING PVT LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 149(1)(a) are fulfilled in the facts of this case. The appellant craves to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of promotion, construction, development, purchase and sale of real estate properties and filed

YAD DHARAM SATYA TRUST ,DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 149(1)(a) are fulfilled in the facts of this case. The appellant craves to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of promotion, construction, development, purchase and sale of real estate properties and filed

ASHISH DHAM,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

house property. 4. That ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the correct facts of the case and giving proper opportunity of being heard and raising any query during the course of hearing is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the confirming the addition the addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- on account of alleged difference in the receipts