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

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

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

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

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

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

property of\nPermanent Establishment), 13(3) (Capital gain on ships and aircrafts),\n13(3A) (Capital gain on shares acquired after 1 April 2017), 13(36)\n(Capital gain on shares between 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2019), will be\ntaxable only in the country in which alienator is a resident. Therefore, the\namended Article 13(4) effectively provides that

SUMEET DHIMAN,PUNJAB vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

housing loan borrowed for 2 Sumeet Dhiman , Punjab purchase of property located at PTS-01-0802, EMMAR PALM TERRACES which were located at two different locations. After considering the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 54 with respect to only one of the aforesaid properties and accordingly limited the deduction

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

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

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

PAYAL BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 41(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Years: 2015-16

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessment order in this appeal is passed by the Assessing Officer [for short, AO] under section 143(3) of the Act. Smt. Payal Bansal 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That assessment order passed

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. LATA GOEL

Bench: The Learned

6. The AO passed an assessment order dated 27.03.2015 under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act restricting the deduction under Section 54F to ₹30 crores, as against ₹90 crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. The Assessee had deposited the consideration in the capital gains account in two tranches – ₹30 crores on 28.07.2011 and ₹60 crores