ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

section 23(1)(a) and 23(1)(a) of the Income tax Act. The Assessing Officer has erred in treating the clubbed up Income as composite rent under the head 'Income from House Property' and in the process has failed to segregate composite rent into the rent of the premises taxable under the head 'Income from House Property' and taxable

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. AJAY KAILA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is also

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Vs. Ajay Kalia, Circle-32(1), 128/B/1, Village Kilokari, New Delhi. Near Ashram, New Delhi. Pan: Aacpk5645F Co No.254/Del/2014 (Ita No.245/Del/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 253(4) makes it abundantly vivid that the scope of a Cross objection is not restricted only to the points 6 CO No.253/Del/2014 decided against the appealing party, but, also extends to the points decided against the other side. The mandate of the provision is quite vast and is unlike the prescription of rule 27 of the ITAT Rules

MANISHA JUNEJA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimanisha Juneja Sawhney, Vs. The Cit, W-31, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi International Taxation-3, Pan: Bjgps5452N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property of Rs. 445200 shown in original assessment order and income under head other sources shown of INR 323291 in original assessment order which remained unchanged in order passed under section 143 (3) read with section 263 of income tax act. Therefore, he submitted that there is no error in order of learned assessing officer with respect to above

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

ACIT, CIRCLE- 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. PLAZA PARTNERS, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2012-13

section 194-I of the Act and there is no change in facts and circumstances of the case as in the earlier years too the income from letting out has been returned and assessed under the head "income from house property". Before the Ld. CITA, the assessee has cited several decisions in support, out of which in the, decision

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-04 vs. M/S MICROSOFT INDIA (R ANDD) PVT LTD

Appeals stand dismissed and

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

house property‟. Moreover, the AO resorted to a further addition of INR 170,09,60,683/- on account of the transfer pricing adjustment. 4. Assailing the aforenoted assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT under Section 253

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ROHIT KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

property KG Farms was sold by Mani Kakkar to Kedarnath Gupta. However, the findings of the Tribunal recorded in the case of Kedarnath Gupta, to which we have alluded earlier, are not findings which are binding on us, for the reasons already stated by us while dealing with the appeal in the case of Kedarnath Gupta. We, therefore

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MANI KAKKAR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

property KG Farms was sold by Mani Kakkar to Kedarnath Gupta. However, the findings of the Tribunal recorded in the case of Kedarnath Gupta, to which we have alluded earlier, are not findings which are binding on us, for the reasons already stated by us while dealing with the appeal in the case of Kedarnath Gupta. We, therefore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASHA KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

property KG Farms was sold by Mani Kakkar to Kedarnath Gupta. However, the findings of the Tribunal recorded in the case of Kedarnath Gupta, to which we have alluded earlier, are not findings which are binding on us, for the reasons already stated by us while dealing with the appeal in the case of Kedarnath Gupta. We, therefore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NITIN KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

property KG Farms was sold by Mani Kakkar to Kedarnath Gupta. However, the findings of the Tribunal recorded in the case of Kedarnath Gupta, to which we have alluded earlier, are not findings which are binding on us, for the reasons already stated by us while dealing with the appeal in the case of Kedarnath Gupta. We, therefore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

property KG Farms was sold by Mani Kakkar to Kedarnath Gupta. However, the findings of the Tribunal recorded in the case of Kedarnath Gupta, to which we have alluded earlier, are not findings which are binding on us, for the reasons already stated by us while dealing with the appeal in the case of Kedarnath Gupta. We, therefore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KEDAR NATH GUPTA

property KG Farms was sold by Mani Kakkar to Kedarnath Gupta. However, the findings of the Tribunal recorded in the case of Kedarnath Gupta, to which we have alluded earlier, are not findings which are binding on us, for the reasons already stated by us while dealing with the appeal in the case of Kedarnath Gupta. We, therefore

M/S. VIKON ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 3345/Del/2015 (A.Y 2010-11) Vikon Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 31, First Floor, Sunder Nagar, Centre Circle – 5, New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan : Aabcv 7701 K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

253. 5 9. We have hard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. There is no exempt income claimed by the assessee as there is only income from house property in the present assessment year and no other investment was made by the assessee. This is reflected in the profit and loss account, therefore