ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SEEMA SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

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. 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. SHRI AKSHAY 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. SHRI SURESH NANDA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

253 State v. Nalini while discussing the concept of conspiracy observed in sub para 7 of para 583: “7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into a joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each

DAIKIN AIRCONDITIONING INDIA PVT LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

253 State v. Nalini while discussing the concept of conspiracy observed in sub para 7 of para 583: “7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into a joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XI vs. AMIT MALHOTRA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

253 State v. Nalini while discussing the concept of conspiracy observed in sub para 7 of para 583: “7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into a joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each

PR. CIT CENTRAL-1 vs. AMRAPALI GRAND

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

253 State v. Nalini while discussing the concept of conspiracy observed in sub para 7 of para 583: “7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into a joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

253 State v. Nalini while discussing the concept of conspiracy observed in sub para 7 of para 583: “7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into a joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each

COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-II vs. SPN MILK PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

253 State v. Nalini while discussing the concept of conspiracy observed in sub para 7 of para 583: “7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into a joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(CENTRAL)-I vs. SIDDHARATH SAREEN

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

253 State v. Nalini while discussing the concept of conspiracy observed in sub para 7 of para 583: “7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into a joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. JUBLIANT OIL & GAS PVT.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

253 State v. Nalini while discussing the concept of conspiracy observed in sub para 7 of para 583: “7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into a joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each

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. 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

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 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

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