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

house property’, the maintenance amounts can be taxed. However, the AO has completely overlooked that the amounts still need to represent the Assessee’s income, which is not even the case of the AO herein. Therefore, in this view of the matter, even if these amounts had been received by the Assessee (though denied), no addition thereof could have been

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

253 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act') against the order dated 23 December 2021 passed by Commissioner of Income (Appeals) - 42, New Delhi [CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Act, on the following grounds: On the facts, in law and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A): General 1. erred in holding that the capital

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

253 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act') against the order dated 23 December 2021 passed by Commissioner of Income (Appeals) - 42, New Delhi [CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Act, on the following grounds: On the facts, in law and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A): General 1. erred in holding that the capital

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 ITA No.4763/Del./2019 find that the facts in the case of M/s Neha Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT(Supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case as in that case, the assessee therein had shown the property as stock- in- trade and except for the ground floor which had been let out by the assesssee, all other

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

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 of the Act. The ITAT vide its common order dated 24 September

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. MENARINI RAUNAQ PHARMA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

property documents, the degrees and related information is also in public domain. Though original degree certificate is given to the candidate, the authentication of the same along with details is available in the register. There is no provision, rule or regulation made by the university authorizing it to keep the degree related information as secret and prohibit the access