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

3. As could be seen from grounds raised, the core issue arising for consideration in the present appeal is, whether the rental income earned by the assessee from letting out a commercial space is assessable under the head “income from house property” as claimed by the assessee or “business income” as held by the assessing officer. 4. Briefly, the facts

M/S BHARTIYA SAMRUDDHI FINANCE LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Mahavir Prasad

253 (SC). He further noted that assessee company has revised its return of income under section 148 for the impugned assessment year and has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of its revised return of income. Relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., M/s. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., reported

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

3 months and further that all cash payments were made by the buyer to the seller either in his presence or in the presence of Dharam Pal Sharma. 41. From the answers to question No.15 and 16, it is seen that Suraj Bhan Sharma had acted as broker, in his capacity as an associate or a person “sitting

RITU KAPUR,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NOIDA , NOIDA

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

253 of the act is unjustified and against the intent of law. Notice dated 20.03.2024 may please be dropped being Issues identified by your goodself were duly examined specifically by the then assessing officer during the course of impugned assessment proceeding conducted u/s 153A of the act. Further, it is understood by the captioned assessee that impugned issue has been

RAGHAV BAHL,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NOIDA , NOIDA

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

253 of the act is unjustified and against the intent of law. Notice dated 20.03.2024 may please be dropped being Issues identified by your goodself were duly examined specifically by the then assessing officer during the course of impugned assessment proceeding conducted u/s 153A of the act. Further, it is understood by the captioned assessee that impugned issue has been

RITU KAPUR ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

253 of the act is unjustified and against the intent of law. Notice dated 20.03.2024 may please be dropped being Issues identified by your goodself were duly examined specifically by the then assessing officer during the course of impugned assessment proceeding conducted u/s 153A of the act. Further, it is understood by the captioned assessee that impugned issue has been

RAGHAV BAHL,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

253 of the act is unjustified and against the intent of law. Notice dated 20.03.2024 may please be dropped being Issues identified by your goodself were duly examined specifically by the then assessing officer during the course of impugned assessment proceeding conducted u/s 153A of the act. Further, it is understood by the captioned assessee that impugned issue has been

RITU KAPUR,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NOIDA , NOIDA

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

253 of the act is unjustified and against the intent of law. Notice dated 20.03.2024 may please be dropped being Issues identified by your goodself were duly examined specifically by the then assessing officer during the course of impugned assessment proceeding conducted u/s 153A of the act. Further, it is understood by the captioned assessee that impugned issue has been

RAGHAV BAHL,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

253 of the act is unjustified and against the intent of law. Notice dated 20.03.2024 may please be dropped being Issues identified by your goodself were duly examined specifically by the then assessing officer during the course of impugned assessment proceeding conducted u/s 153A of the act. Further, it is understood by the captioned assessee that impugned issue has been

RITU KAPUR,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NOIDA , NOIDA

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

253 of the act is unjustified and against the intent of law. Notice dated 20.03.2024 may please be dropped being Issues identified by your goodself were duly examined specifically by the then assessing officer during the course of impugned assessment proceeding conducted u/s 153A of the act. Further, it is understood by the captioned assessee that impugned issue has been

RITU KAPUR,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

253 of the act is unjustified and against the intent of law. Notice dated 20.03.2024 may please be dropped being Issues identified by your goodself were duly examined specifically by the then assessing officer during the course of impugned assessment proceeding conducted u/s 153A of the act. Further, it is understood by the captioned assessee that impugned issue has been

RAGHAV BAHL,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

253 of the act is unjustified and against the intent of law. Notice dated 20.03.2024 may please be dropped being Issues identified by your goodself were duly examined specifically by the then assessing officer during the course of impugned assessment proceeding conducted u/s 153A of the act. Further, it is understood by the captioned assessee that impugned issue has been

RAGHAV BAHL,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

253 of the act is unjustified and against the intent of law. Notice dated 20.03.2024 may please be dropped being Issues identified by your goodself were duly examined specifically by the then assessing officer during the course of impugned assessment proceeding conducted u/s 153A of the act. Further, it is understood by the captioned assessee that impugned issue has been

RAGHAV BAHL,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

253 of the act is unjustified and against the intent of law. Notice dated 20.03.2024 may please be dropped being Issues identified by your goodself were duly examined specifically by the then assessing officer during the course of impugned assessment proceeding conducted u/s 153A of the act. Further, it is understood by the captioned assessee that impugned issue has been

RITU KAPUR,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NOIDA , NOIDA

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

253 of the act is unjustified and against the intent of law. Notice dated 20.03.2024 may please be dropped being Issues identified by your goodself were duly examined specifically by the then assessing officer during the course of impugned assessment proceeding conducted u/s 153A of the act. Further, it is understood by the captioned assessee that impugned issue has been