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

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

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

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property (residential house) and thus the determination of annual value was not justified. E] Photocopy of Trading, Profit & Loss Account for the year ending 31st March, 2009 and Balance Sheet on that date along with Audit Report on the prescribed Form 3CD for the audit held u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. Explanation/ confirmation of the parties

M/S. RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

House, New Delhi. It was further mentioned that apart from the above proceedings, assessee company had also filed two civil suits for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,26,91,544/- and Rs.41,64,47,667/- and these suits were pending before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court being CS (OS) No. 850/2007 and CS (OS) No. 1093/2008

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

House, New Delhi. It was further mentioned that apart from the above proceedings, assessee company had also filed two civil suits for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,26,91,544/- and Rs.41,64,47,667/- and these suits were pending before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court being CS (OS) No. 850/2007 and CS (OS) No. 1093/2008

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2 vs. M/S BOSE CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. L TO.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

House No. 243, Nawada, as well as the matriculation certificate of the appellant, issued by the Punjab CRL.A. 462/2016 Page 20 of 57 School Education Board, which were individually exhibited. She acknowledged, however, that it was not necessary for an applicant, applying for a PAN card, to visit the office personally, and that she could not, therefore, testify, positively, that

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ERNET INDIA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house in India for residential purposes and which is approved by the Central Govt for the purpose of clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of Section 36 of IT Act. (x) Investment in immovable property i.e. in any building or other immovable property/ asset related to the approved activities of the SIRO. xi) Deposits with the Industrial Development Bank

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ERNET INDIA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house in India for residential purposes and which is approved by the Central Govt for the purpose of clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of Section 36 of IT Act. (x) Investment in immovable property i.e. in any building or other immovable property/ asset related to the approved activities of the SIRO. xi) Deposits with the Industrial Development Bank

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

DCIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. ERNET INDIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

house in India for residential purposes and which is approved by the Central Govt for the purpose of clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of Section 36 of IT Act. (x) Investment in immovable property i.e. in any building or other immovable property/ asset related to the approved activities of the SIRO. 11 I.T.A. No.2235/DEL/2019 xi) Deposits with the Industrial

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

250 of the Income Tax Act dated. 28.3.2014. 2. The Issue involved in the present appeal is regarding computation Long term capital gain of Rs. 8,35,564/- as against Rs. NIL filed by the assessee by withdrawing exemption of Rs. 7,30,539/- under section 54 claimed by the assessee and reducing the cost of indexation

DDIT (E), DELHI vs. M/S. ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena Pillai

250. 9. The ld. AR submitted that the income from sponsorship and grant of commercial rights/telecasting rights received by the appellant are in order to ensure the enforcement of its object, of promotion of game of football for which appellant society was formed and no profit motive was involved. 10. We have perused the records, the paper book filed

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from such customer. The said amendment also provided that contract for carrying out work shall not include contract