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

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

250 ITR 667 (Mad) where the court emphasized that “If the amount so received is not an amount which is excluded from the ambit of income under the Act, such receipt would constitute income. The fact that the amount was given to the recipient without any demand for the same by the recipient, or without any legal obligation

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

250 ITR 667 (Mad) where the court emphasized that “If the amount so received is not an amount which is excluded from the ambit of income under the Act, such receipt would constitute income. The fact that the amount was given to the recipient without any demand for the same by the recipient, or without any legal obligation

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)

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 22.12.2016 of the Learned Assessing Officer/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO") under Section 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of case are that the assessee filed return

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

250(4) of the Act when the AO has filed to response on the request of ld. CIT(A) of making verification of the submissions made by the assessee. It is further seen that the assessee has discharged the burden casted upon it of establishing the genuineness of the loans and creditworthiness of the lender company and further established

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

250(4) of the Act when the AO has filed to response on the request of ld. CIT(A) of making verification of the submissions made by the assessee. It is further seen that the assessee has discharged the burden casted upon it of establishing the genuineness of the loans and creditworthiness of the lender company and further established

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

2)(b) of the Act and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to avail exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act. He, therefore taxed the assessee as AOP and computed the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.1,93,93,48,991/- including therein addition of Rs. 31,20,000/- as income from house property and disallowance

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

section 54 of the Act except to the extent that the assessee submitted a sale agreement which is not registered, agreement may be not completed/obeyed fully or revoked in future. Thus Ld. AO denied the exemption of Rs. 2,81,58,300/- u/s 54 of the Act solely on this reasoning and has assessed the income of the 3 ACIT

SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR SEKHARI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

250/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had not disclosed any capital gain arising out of the sale of land situated at Village ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others Rojka Gujar, Distt.-Sohna, Haryana. The Assessing Officer confronted this issue with the assessee who vide letter dated 13.03.2013 submitted that land at Village Rojka Gujar, Distt.-Sohna, Haryana. did not fall within

SMT POOJA SEKHARI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

250/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had not disclosed any capital gain arising out of the sale of land situated at Village ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others Rojka Gujar, Distt.-Sohna, Haryana. The Assessing Officer confronted this issue with the assessee who vide letter dated 13.03.2013 submitted that land at Village Rojka Gujar, Distt.-Sohna, Haryana. did not fall within

SHRI GAURAV SEKHARI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

250/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had not disclosed any capital gain arising out of the sale of land situated at Village ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others Rojka Gujar, Distt.-Sohna, Haryana. The Assessing Officer confronted this issue with the assessee who vide letter dated 13.03.2013 submitted that land at Village Rojka Gujar, Distt.-Sohna, Haryana. did not fall within

SMT. AARTI SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

250/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had not disclosed any capital gain arising out of the sale of land situated at Village ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others Rojka Gujar, Distt.-Sohna, Haryana. The Assessing Officer confronted this issue with the assessee who vide letter dated 13.03.2013 submitted that land at Village Rojka Gujar, Distt.-Sohna, Haryana. did not fall within

SMT. AARTI SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

250/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had not disclosed any capital gain arising out of the sale of land situated at Village ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others Rojka Gujar, Distt.-Sohna, Haryana. The Assessing Officer confronted this issue with the assessee who vide letter dated 13.03.2013 submitted that land at Village Rojka Gujar, Distt.-Sohna, Haryana. did not fall within