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

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

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. 5. That ld assessing officer 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 case in making the addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- on account of alleged difference in the receipts

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. AMITA GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

house property income is hereby deleted.” 10. Now the department is in appeal and the assessee has filed Cross Objection. The ld. DR reiterated the observations made by the AO in the assessment order dated 30.12.2010 and further submitted that the assessee filed copy of the rent agreement before the ld. CIT(A) and not before

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RANJANA GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

house property income is hereby deleted.” 10. Now the department is in appeal and the assessee has filed Cross Objection. The ld. DR reiterated the observations made by the AO in the assessment order dated 30.12.2010 and further submitted that the assessee filed copy of the rent agreement before the ld. CIT(A) and not before

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

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

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

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

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

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)

section 57(ii), including actual expenditure on repairs & insurance, and depreciation on WDV of the building and other assets, and the appellant shall provide the necessary evidences to the Assessing Officer in support of the same. 6. Ld. CIT(A) treated income from letting off of building as income from other sources. 5 and 7. Against order

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

250 VP 302 312.5 SVP 364 375 5. In the light of the above, it was claimed that its international transaction was at arm’s length. The TPO did not accept the application of CUP as the most appropriate method as the consulting firms whose rates were cited in the TP study report were only quotations and not 4 actual

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

250 of the Act, on the following grounds: On the facts, in law and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A): General 1. erred in holding that the capital gains earned by the Appellant on the sale of Vodafone Essar Limited (VEL') shares by the Appellant to Euro Pacific Securities Limited ('EPSL') are taxable in India; Holding 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

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

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

250 of the Act, on the following grounds: On the facts, in law and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A): General 1. erred in holding that the capital gains earned by the Appellant on the sale of Vodafone Essar Limited (VEL') shares by the Appellant to Euro Pacific Securities Limited ('EPSL') are taxable in India; Holding that

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