GURPREET SINGH DHILLON,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

251/- paid on housing loan which resulted in loss of Rs.6,58,00,101/- under the head income from house property. In the return of income filed the assessee claimed TDS of Rs.11,69,100/- on the entire rent received including rent received in advance i.e. for the period from 1.04.2018 to 15.08.2018 amounting to Rs.45

TUBE ROSE ESTATES PVT. LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result ground number one – three of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

section ITA 3136/Del/2018 24. Hence, the AO observed that with respect to the proportionate maintenance receipt which can be stated to have been income from the house property assessee should not be allowed further expenses for earning the aforesaid. Hence, the AO has worked out proportionate expenditure of Rs. 1,12,59,458/- (34.72% of 324,29,316). AO held

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

RAMESH CHANDER BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 53(5), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house in the context of proviso to Section 54 of the I.T. Act ?” He has submitted that the sale of land at Gurgaon and deposit of money in Capital Gain Scheme Account is in accordance with provisions of Section 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961, is not in dispute. He has submitted that assessee has entered into genuine transaction with

GURINDER MOHAN SINGH NINDRAJOG vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

house property and income from other sources. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income-Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was conducted on 19th November, 1999 at the residential and office premises of the appellant at Mumbai. On the basis of the aforesaid search, a notice under Section 158BC of the Act was issued

GURINDER MOHAN SINGH NINDRAJOG vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

house property and income from other sources. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income-Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was conducted on 19th November, 1999 at the residential and office premises of the appellant at Mumbai. On the basis of the aforesaid search, a notice under Section 158BC of the Act was issued

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

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

property shall be NIL in accordance with the provisions of section 23 (1)( c) of the Act • CIT v. Joy Jacob: 151 ITR 19 (Ker.) • Premsudha Exports (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT: 110 ITD 158 (Mum. Trib.) • Shakuntala Devi v. DDIT: 31 CCH 32 (Bang.) • Kamal Mishra v. ITO: 19 SOT 251 (Del.)(Further appeal dismissed by the High Court

THE ACIT.,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80IB(10) does not arise. He further pointed out that the built-up area of each house in the aforesaid projects was less than 1000 sq.ft.. He pointed out that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the aforesaid projects was disallowed without going into the details of satisfaction of aforesaid various conditions by simply following the assessment order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80IB(10) does not arise. He further pointed out that the built-up area of each house in the aforesaid projects was less than 1000 sq.ft.. He pointed out that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the aforesaid projects was disallowed without going into the details of satisfaction of aforesaid various conditions by simply following the assessment order

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80IB(10) does not arise. He further pointed out that the built-up area of each house in the aforesaid projects was less than 1000 sq.ft.. He pointed out that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the aforesaid projects was disallowed without going into the details of satisfaction of aforesaid various conditions by simply following the assessment order

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80IB(10) does not arise. He further pointed out that the built-up area of each house in the aforesaid projects was less than 1000 sq.ft.. He pointed out that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the aforesaid projects was disallowed without going into the details of satisfaction of aforesaid various conditions by simply following the assessment order

JUBILANT CHEMSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

251 (1) of the Act. 10.4. Accordingly Ground No. 1-2.4 raised by assessee stands dismissed. 11. Ground No. 3-3.2 is in respect of disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs.102,52,32,000/- holding it to be capital in nature. 12. Ld.Counsel submitted that Ld.CIT(A) disallowed entire expenditure by holding that research activity carried on by assessee

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

251 (1) of the Act. 10.4. Accordingly Ground No. 1-2.4 raised by assessee stands dismissed. 11. Ground No. 3-3.2 is in respect of disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs.102,52,32,000/- holding it to be capital in nature. 12. Ld.Counsel submitted that Ld.CIT(A) disallowed entire expenditure by holding that research activity carried on by assessee

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

251 (1) of the Act. 10.4. Accordingly Ground No. 1-2.4 raised by assessee stands dismissed. 11. Ground No. 3-3.2 is in respect of disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs.102,52,32,000/- holding it to be capital in nature. 12. Ld.Counsel submitted that Ld.CIT(A) disallowed entire expenditure by holding that research activity carried on by assessee

JUBILANT CHEMSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

251 (1) of the Act. 10.4. Accordingly Ground No. 1-2.4 raised by assessee stands dismissed. 11. Ground No. 3-3.2 is in respect of disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs.102,52,32,000/- holding it to be capital in nature. 12. Ld.Counsel submitted that Ld.CIT(A) disallowed entire expenditure by holding that research activity carried on by assessee

JUBILANT CHEMSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

251 (1) of the Act. 10.4. Accordingly Ground No. 1-2.4 raised by assessee stands dismissed. 11. Ground No. 3-3.2 is in respect of disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs.102,52,32,000/- holding it to be capital in nature. 12. Ld.Counsel submitted that Ld.CIT(A) disallowed entire expenditure by holding that research activity carried on by assessee

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

251 (1) of the Act. 10.4. Accordingly Ground No. 1-2.4 raised by assessee stands dismissed. 11. Ground No. 3-3.2 is in respect of disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs.102,52,32,000/- holding it to be capital in nature. 12. Ld.Counsel submitted that Ld.CIT(A) disallowed entire expenditure by holding that research activity carried on by assessee