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

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

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

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)

6 where the assessee has purchased any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset whilst the assessee has sold the plot on 26.09.2016. The assessee had to acquire the property till 25.09.2016. Also the case of the assessee does not come under the ambit

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

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under section 263 in respect of the issue of taxability of interest of enhanced compensation, which was duly supported by judicial precedents and at best, therefore, could be said to be debatable ousting the jurisdiction under section

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

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under section 263 in respect of the issue of taxability of interest of enhanced compensation, which was duly supported by judicial precedents and at best, therefore, could be said to be debatable ousting the jurisdiction under section

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

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under section 263 in respect of the issue of taxability of interest of enhanced compensation, which was duly supported by judicial precedents and at best, therefore, could be said to be debatable ousting the jurisdiction under section

MUKUNDA RAJ 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

MUKUNDA RAJ 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

BISHNU KRISHNA SHRESTHA THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR SMT SHOBHA SHRESTHA,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, 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

MUKUNDA RAJ 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