SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi PAN: AACPT7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AACPT7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate along with Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue by: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last hearing

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi PAN: AACPT7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AACPT7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate along with Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue by: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last hearing

SRI OMKAR CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 346/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Omkar Chadha, Vs Income Tax Officer, I-39, Jangpura Extn., Ward-54(3), New Delhi-110014 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepc8329G Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2020

260 CTR 219 wherein it was held that expression “a residential 7 Omkar Chadha house” in section. 54 (1) has to be understood in the sense that the building should be of residential nature and “a” should not be understood to indicate a singular number. Where an assessee had purchased two residential flats, he is entitle, exemption under section

YASH SUNEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-42(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

house no. 273 was let out to M/s Client Technology Ltd. Agra for business purpose and therefore, assessee is legally entitled for deduction under section 54F of the Act. In the case of ‘Sanjeev Puri Vs. Dy. CIT’, (Supra), the property was 22. owned by the assessee, in the records of municipality which was being used by himself

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

House Property". That in the case of the appellant the L.D A.O has claimed the Residential Property at "New Friends Colony, New Delhi" to be owned by the appellant, though on facts the said property has been claimed as a "Self Occupied" property by the mother of the appellant in her return filed by her Legal heir. The copy

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

House Property". That in the case of the appellant the L.D A.O has claimed the Residential Property at "New Friends Colony, New Delhi" to be owned by the appellant, though on facts the said property has been claimed as a "Self Occupied" property by the mother of the appellant in her return filed by her Legal heir. The copy

WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

house property’. The Ld. AO is directed to modify the assessment of AY 2012-13 suitably following the above direction. This ground is decided accordingly. 23. Ground No. 4 relates to disallowance of interest of Rs. 57,90,822/- paid to M/s. Binaguri Tea Company Pvt. Ltd.. Identical issue arose for our consideration in AY 2011-12 in Ground

NIGARA HOTELS& BUILDERA ( P) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, we set aside the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) has been preferred by the assessee questioning the correctness of the view taken by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the ITAT”) in its order dated 30.04.2012 deciding ITA No. 901/Del/2012 and rejecting the contention of the appellant that the income claimed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.RITURAJ TEXTILE & GENERAL

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

260. 9. The Assessee's appeals for both AYs 1989-90 and 1990-91 were disposed of by the CIT(A) by a common order dated 30th November 1995. The CIT (A) accepted the case of the Assessee that notwithstanding the amendment to the expression 'net wealth' by insertion of Explanation 1 below Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HARJEEV AGGARWAL

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

260. 9. The Assessee's appeals for both AYs 1989-90 and 1990-91 were disposed of by the CIT(A) by a common order dated 30th November 1995. The CIT (A) accepted the case of the Assessee that notwithstanding the amendment to the expression 'net wealth' by insertion of Explanation 1 below Section

RAJ DULARI BHASIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

260. 9. The Assessee's appeals for both AYs 1989-90 and 1990-91 were disposed of by the CIT(A) by a common order dated 30th November 1995. The CIT (A) accepted the case of the Assessee that notwithstanding the amendment to the expression 'net wealth' by insertion of Explanation 1 below Section

SUNANDAN KUMAR MINOCHA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-63(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

260 CTR 219 DATED 20.12.2012 Held that the expression "a residential house" in section. 54 (1) has to be understood in the sense that the building should be of residential nature and "a" should not be understood to indicate a singular number. Where an assessee had purchased two residential flats. he is entitled to exemption under section 54 in respect

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –V vs. KAPIL NAGPAL

260 A (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 29th January 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No. 5077/Del/2011 for the Assessment Year („AY‟) 2007-08. Background Facts 2. The background facts are that the Respondent-Assessee filed his return of income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

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

house property (b) income from other sources (c) capital gains (d) any income by way of voluntary contribution received by a political party. 8. However, in order to avail of such exemption a political party has to fulfil the conditions detailed in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 13A. A political party has to: (a) keep

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

house property (b) income from other sources (c) capital gains (d) any income by way of voluntary contribution received by a political party. 8. However, in order to avail of such exemption a political party has to fulfil the conditions detailed in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 13A. A political party has to: (a) keep

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

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

house property (b) income from other sources (c) capital gains (d) any income by way of voluntary contribution received by a political party. 8. However, in order to avail of such exemption a political party has to fulfil the conditions detailed in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 13A. A political party has to: (a) keep

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

260/-. Later on, search and seizure operation was carried on 19.1.2009 in Kurele Group including Assessee Company and accordingly, notice u/s 153A was issued on 30.11.2009. In response, the assessee company filed its return of income on 31.03.2010, incorporating the effect of merger of YMC Buildmore Pvt. Ltd., and consequently loss of Rs. 1,34,03,902/ was declared. Although

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

260/-. Later on, search and seizure operation was carried on 19.1.2009 in Kurele Group including Assessee Company and accordingly, notice u/s 153A was issued on 30.11.2009. In response, the assessee company filed its return of income on 31.03.2010, incorporating the effect of merger of YMC Buildmore Pvt. Ltd., and consequently loss of Rs. 1,34,03,902/ was declared. Although

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

260/-. Later on, search and seizure operation was carried on 19.1.2009 in Kurele Group including Assessee Company and accordingly, notice u/s 153A was issued on 30.11.2009. In response, the assessee company filed its return of income on 31.03.2010, incorporating the effect of merger of YMC Buildmore Pvt. Ltd., and consequently loss of Rs. 1,34,03,902/ was declared. Although