SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

section 54 of the I.T. Act only benefit of one residential house property of Rs. 79,71,600/- purchased by the assessee during the year can be allowed to the assessee. 3. That the action of the CIT(A) is vitiated in law as no show cause notice required to be given u/s 251(1

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

251 12 VAT paid on purchases 2,960,787 13 Sample courier charges 11,064,039 14 Gym charges 355,988 15 Sample expenses for manufacture, suppliers and trade shows. 23,396,979 16 Export forwarding and clearing expenses 3,569,537 17 Misc. Expenses 3,960,471 18 Sales incentive expenses 2,869,355 19 Warehouse running and maintenance

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

property and entering into an agreement for construction of house with the builder. 8.5 Admittedly, it is established that whenever there is a difference between the returned income and assessed income, there is an inference of concealment and Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act raises a presumption which is always rebuttal. There is no quarrel about

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

1 and 2 ld. Assessing Officer without appreciating the correct facts of the case and giving proper opportunity of being heard is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in making the addition of Rs. 12,52,000/- Page 3 of 11 ITA No.-1953/Del/2016. Ashish Dham. under section

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

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

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 to the banks are shown at page No. 61 of the paper book. Therefore, the ld. Counsel submits that in view of the above evidences there is no justification in not allowing the interest paid on housing loan borrowed for purchase of the property, which was let out and the rental income was shown from such property under

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

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT be entitled to claim benefit of exception, carved out in Explanation 5 to section 271(1

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT be entitled to claim benefit of exception, carved out in Explanation 5 to section 271(1

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT be entitled to claim benefit of exception, carved out in Explanation 5 to section 271(1

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

251. The learned assessing officer noted that the assessee has revised return of loss filed u/s 139 (3) and only return filed u/s 139 (1) can be revised. Therefore according to him the return filed u/s 139 (3) cannot be revised and therefore no cognizance is taken of the revised return filed by the assessee. Therefore the learned assessing officer

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

251. The learned assessing officer noted that the assessee has revised return of loss filed u/s 139 (3) and only return filed u/s 139 (1) can be revised. Therefore according to him the return filed u/s 139 (3) cannot be revised and therefore no cognizance is taken of the revised return filed by the assessee. Therefore the learned assessing officer

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

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

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 148, the reassessment had been initiated without any basis and information and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, as noted above, no new documents were discovered by the survey proceedings in January 2014 - all of the documents in question had been in the hands of the government in 2006. The reason that

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S RUDRA BUILDWELL HOMES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Projects Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaecr9589E (Appellant) (Respondent)

properties, including the project known as "Aqua Casa", along with corporate guarantees and pledges, thereby creating an enforceable security interest in favor of the lender. That as per the terms of the Facility Agreement, the repayment obligation in respect of the principal amount was to commence only after the expiry of 24 months from the respective dates of disbursement. That