SHRI KAMAL KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Kamal Kumar Vs. Acit, 13, Ashoka Avenue Road, Central Circle-26, E-2, Dlf Farms Chattarpur, Room No. 323, Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

house is actually let'. This also shows that the expression 'property is let' cannot mean actual letting out of the property because had it been so, there was be no need to use the word 'actually' in sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act. Applying the purposive interpretation, the expression 'property is let' has to be read

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. NIRANJAN KOIRALA,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2253/िद"ी/2010(िन.व. 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-31(1), R. No. 1405, 14Th Floor, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Civic Centre, Jln Marg, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi बनाम Vs. Niranjan Koirala, 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaupk-0483-B Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.02.2010, For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. This Appeal Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 20.07.2018. Thereafter, The Revenue Filed Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification In The Order Of Tribunal On The Ground That The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Vide Application Dated 13.08.2014 Remained To Be Decided. The Tribunal In Ma No. 732/Del/2018 Vide Order Dated 10.07.2023 Recalled The Order

property. It hardly needs to be re-iterated that the law is long settled that in a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing

BARMINCO INDIAN UNDERGROUND MINING SERVICES LLP,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2253/िद"ी/2010(िन.व. 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-31(1), R. No. 1405, 14Th Floor, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Civic Centre, Jln Marg, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi बनाम Vs. Niranjan Koirala, 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaupk-0483-B Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.02.2010, For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. This Appeal Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 20.07.2018. Thereafter, The Revenue Filed Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification In The Order Of Tribunal On The Ground That The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Vide Application Dated 13.08.2014 Remained To Be Decided. The Tribunal In Ma No. 732/Del/2018 Vide Order Dated 10.07.2023 Recalled The Order

property. It hardly needs to be re-iterated that the law is long settled that in a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 03, NEW DELHI vs. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

253 ITR 749 and deleted the addition/disallowance. The learned departmental representative could not show us any reason to state that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on such travel expenditure of aircraft and helicopter can be considered as a personal expenditure of a company. There were no contrary decision is pointed out before us. In view of this

JCB INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT NEAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) against the order dated April 5, 2021 (received on April 5, 2021), passed under section 143(3) of the Act read with sections 144C(3), 2 JCB INDIA LTD. Vs. DCIT 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act, by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, National E-Assessment centre, Delhi

ACIT, CIRCLE- 30(1), NEW DELHI vs. UMESH KUMAR ARORA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Acit, M/S. Umesh Kumar Arora, Circle-30(1), C-15, Greater Kailash Enclave-1, New Delhi Delhi-1100 48 Pan Aaapa4832A Pan :Aaapa4832A (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property, business and other sources. He filed his return for AY 2014-15 on 16.03.2015 declaring an income of Rs. 64,08,730. His case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During assessment proceedings, when confronted by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO"), the assessee submitted that he earned Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”) of Rs.53,83,045 from sale

AVICHAL KULSHRESTHA,LONDON vs. ITO WARD 35(7), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

property had to acquire till 25.09.201B". #25.09.2018, if period of 2 years is counted 8. The learned CIT(A) had passed the order on 08.02.2024 u/s 250, dismissing the assessee's appeal. The comments of the learned CIT(A) and the counter comments of the assessee are summarized hereunder: Comments of the Counter comments of the assessee learned

SATISH KUMAR DHINGRA ,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

House: 344 ITR 554 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)  Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vodafone Essar : 212 Taxman 184 (Del.)  CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.)  CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP)  CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP)  CIT vs. Associated Food

ASHOK KUMAR DHINGRA ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

House: 344 ITR 554 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)  Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vodafone Essar : 212 Taxman 184 (Del.)  CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.)  CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP)  CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP)  CIT vs. Associated Food

SUBHASH CHAND DHINGRA ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

House: 344 ITR 554 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)  Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vodafone Essar : 212 Taxman 184 (Del.)  CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.)  CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP)  CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP)  CIT vs. Associated Food

ADD. CIT SPL RANGE--3, NEW DELHI vs. DLF LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.5978/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.2238/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No.5919/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act -Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT [19581 34 ITR 265 (Bom.f In that judgment, it has been laid down that where an assessee claims deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed, all that the assessee had to show was that the capital which was borrowed was used for business purpose in the relevant

ADD. CIT SPL RANGE--3, NEW DELHI vs. DLF LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.5978/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.2238/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No.5919/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act -Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT [19581 34 ITR 265 (Bom.f In that judgment, it has been laid down that where an assessee claims deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed, all that the assessee had to show was that the capital which was borrowed was used for business purpose in the relevant

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 03, NEW DELHI vs. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.5978/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.2238/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No.5919/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act -Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT [19581 34 ITR 265 (Bom.f In that judgment, it has been laid down that where an assessee claims deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed, all that the assessee had to show was that the capital which was borrowed was used for business purpose in the relevant

NIVESH GROUP ,DELHI vs. PR. CIT DELHI-15, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

house property in ITR as compared to rental receipt in 26AS 3. High ratio of refund to TDS (Part B-TTI of ITR) 1. In response to the statutory notices, the assessee submitted necessary details and documents through mail, as prescribed for e-proceedings of the case. The documents and other supporting material submitted by the assessee were examined

BISHNU KRISHNA SHRESTHA,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) seeking to set aside the identical ex- parte orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 26 on 13.03.2025 and 15.03.2025 (“Impugned Orders”). By way of the Impugned Orders, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment orders passed by Respondent herein - DCIT, Central Circle-13 for various AYs (“Assessment Orders

SHOBHA SHRESTHA,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) seeking to set aside the identical ex- parte orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 26 on 13.03.2025 and 15.03.2025 (“Impugned Orders”). By way of the Impugned Orders, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment orders passed by Respondent herein - DCIT, Central Circle-13 for various AYs (“Assessment Orders

SHOBHA SHRESTHA,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) seeking to set aside the identical ex- parte orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 26 on 13.03.2025 and 15.03.2025 (“Impugned Orders”). By way of the Impugned Orders, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment orders passed by Respondent herein - DCIT, Central Circle-13 for various AYs (“Assessment Orders

SHOBHA SHRESTHA,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13, NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) seeking to set aside the identical ex- parte orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 26 on 13.03.2025 and 15.03.2025 (“Impugned Orders”). By way of the Impugned Orders, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment orders passed by Respondent herein - DCIT, Central Circle-13 for various AYs (“Assessment Orders