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

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

NTPC SAIL POWER COMPANY PVT. LTD.

house property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources.......... The company may also, as in that case, keep the surplus funds in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interest will be chargeable under section 56 of the Income-tax Act". The Supreme Court, subsequently, in Bokaro Steel Ltd. (supra) held that: “However, while interest earned

VINAY BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

section 23(4) were not applicable and thus, the addition so made should be deleted. 1.2. That. the learned CIT (A) while sustaining the addition on account of notional rent with respect to vacation house property at 257, Phase - 2, Aldeia De Goa, has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee - appellant was not able

M/S. MIRA EXIM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

property. 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that similar addition was made in Assessment Year 2009-10 and the matter travelled to the Hon’ble High Court. He submitted that the Tribunal deleted the addition and deletion was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, he requested that in this year also, the addition may be deleted

M/S. MIRA EXIM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

property. 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that similar addition was made in Assessment Year 2009-10 and the matter travelled to the Hon’ble High Court. He submitted that the Tribunal deleted the addition and deletion was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, he requested that in this year also, the addition may be deleted

PSB INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

251 ITR 99]. 10. Mr. Deepak Chopra, learned counsel for the Revenue, countered the aforesaid submission. He relied upon the reasoning given by the authorities below in imposing/sustaining the penalty. He also referred to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act on the basis of which he submitted that the annual rent in the Lease Agreement was suppressed

SHRI INAMUL HAQ,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO, SAHARANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

251 CTR 371 took the view that, once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer of capital asset has been invested in or construction of residential house, even through the construction is not completed in all respect as required under law, assessee cannot be denied benefit under section 54F. In view of the above submission, it is clear

JAGDISH PARSHAD JAIN,PANIPAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KARNAL, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

251 CTR 371 took the view that, once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer of capital asset has been invested in or construction of residential house, even through the construction is not completed in all respect as required under law, assessee cannot be denied benefit under section 54F. In view of the above submission, it is clear

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

properties and filed its return of income for the A.Y. under consideration on 27.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 77,28,950/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] was issued on 12.04.2016 which was duly served upon the assessee company

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

properties and filed its return of income for the A.Y. under consideration on 27.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 77,28,950/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] was issued on 12.04.2016 which was duly served upon the assessee company

NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Applications of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 251(l)(a) of the Act and enhancement of Appellant’s income by the Hon’ble SA No. 570, 571 & 572/Del/2018 Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd. CIT(A) is invalid and contrary to the provisions of law. (G. No. 1 of the AM). 2. That the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action

NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Applications of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 251(l)(a) of the Act and enhancement of Appellant’s income by the Hon’ble SA No. 570, 571 & 572/Del/2018 Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd. CIT(A) is invalid and contrary to the provisions of law. (G. No. 1 of the AM). 2. That the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action

NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Applications of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 251(l)(a) of the Act and enhancement of Appellant’s income by the Hon’ble SA No. 570, 571 & 572/Del/2018 Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd. CIT(A) is invalid and contrary to the provisions of law. (G. No. 1 of the AM). 2. That the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action

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

house property and disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 5,23,190/- claimed by the assessee in respect of leased out properties in the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 framed by him under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) called for the remand report

M/S. LUCINA LAND DEVELOPMENT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds no

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Lucina Land Vs. Acit, Development Ltd., Circle-15(2), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan :Aabcl2130N (Appellant) (Respondent)

251(2) only provides that a reasonable opportunity be given to an assessee for show cause against an enhancement and that has been duly done. 4.2. I have given serious consideration to the submissions made by the appellant from time to time. Interest on borrowed funds are allowable under the specific provision of section 36(l)(iii) when such funds

VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

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

house property Rs.20,52,542/-, against income from other sources Rs.5,40,403/- and against STCG Rs.65,251/- thereby balance STCG of Rs.3,84,82,308/- will be set off against c/f loss under the same head of STCG (against applicable c/f STCG Rs.4,41,05,508/-) so that speculative loss is c/f. Similarly in AY 2016-17, after considering

VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

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

house property Rs.20,52,542/-, against income from other sources Rs.5,40,403/- and against STCG Rs.65,251/- thereby balance STCG of Rs.3,84,82,308/- will be set off against c/f loss under the same head of STCG (against applicable c/f STCG Rs.4,41,05,508/-) so that speculative loss is c/f. Similarly in AY 2016-17, after considering