M/S. MANJIT KAUR MEMORIAL PREMIER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

house property. However, while computing the total assessed income added the interest income of Rs. 17,503/- , without giving any justification for the same. In the present case, assessee purchased and constructed the property after taking term loan from the bank and made the agreement with the Mothers Pride Education Persona P Ltd in respect of rental income. There

SANJAY SHARMA,GREATER NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sanjay Sharma, Vs Acit, Flat 4063, Ats Paradiso, Noida. Sec-Chi-04, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308. Pan-Amkps9185L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 23.12.2021. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Ground Of Appeal:- 1. “In The Instant Case The Appellant Assessee While Submitting The Income Tax Return For The Financial Year Ended On 31-03-2012 (Relevant To The Asst. Year 2012-13) Inadvertently Forgotten To Submit The Details For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Did Not Mentioned The Details Of Sale Of Residential House Property & Utilization Of Long-Term Capital Gain Arising Out Of Sale Of Residential House Property In The Purchase Of Another/New Residential House Property. Consequently, Income Demand Of Rs. 5,61,107/- Was Raised Against The Appellant Assessee Followed By The Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

House Property at Flat 4063. ATS Paradiso, CHI-04, Greater Noida. Hence, amount of Long Term Capital gain is fully exempt u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (Kindly refer Page no.27 To 46) The Grounds of Appeal furnished herewith (Kindly refer Page no.57 to Page no.58) are in itself self-explanatory and the same may kindly be reviewed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING CO. LTD.

The Appeals are disposed of in the above terms without any order on costs

houses and flats would be impermissible – which is clearly not the case. 14. As far as the alternative argument that the assessee itself is occupier, because it holds the property till it is sold, is concerned, the Court does not find any merit in this submission. While there can be no quarrel with the proposition that “occupation” can be synonymous

ACIT CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI vs. LOKVIR KAPOOR, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishilokvir Kapoor, Vs. Acit, C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi Circle-19(2), Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Lokvir Kapoor, Circle-19(2), C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi New Delhi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 56 (2) (Vii) of the act. Consequently, he confirmed denial of benefit u/s 54F of The Act. 7. Coming to the 1st issue of computation of capital gain in respect of residential property sold by the assessee, facts shows that assessee declared a long-term capital gain of INR 30762604/– on sale of residential property 264, Espace Nirwana Country

LOKVIR KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishilokvir Kapoor, Vs. Acit, C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi Circle-19(2), Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Lokvir Kapoor, Circle-19(2), C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi New Delhi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 56 (2) (Vii) of the act. Consequently, he confirmed denial of benefit u/s 54F of The Act. 7. Coming to the 1st issue of computation of capital gain in respect of residential property sold by the assessee, facts shows that assessee declared a long-term capital gain of INR 30762604/– on sale of residential property 264, Espace Nirwana Country

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word 'income' should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the Page 8 of 18 purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. SH. RAMESH BATTA, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Cross

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Central Circle, Ramesh Batta, Dehradun. Vs. 81/210, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun.

house property (SOP) (-) 1,50,000/- Business Income 1,52,51,423/- Profit on Sailok sale of land at Manakmau 5,74,450/- Expenditure on Above land of Manak Mau and Sailok 5,35,807/- Rem./Intt. From partnership firm 38,643/- Batta Bros 1,08,000/- R.B. Coal Co. 1,20,000/- R.B. Brick

JAGDISH CHANDRA MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt.Year: 2008-09

house properties 1,08,75,047 Long term capital gain 17,02,103 Income from other sources 3,83,397 Deduction claimed under Chapter VIA 51,760 He had paid Rs.8,00,000/- as advance tax on 15.03.2008 by CSN 44 BSR 220094. In the application, the appellant admitted that ‘by mistake the assessee has not claimed the same

SWATANTRA LAND & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07

264/-. Further, the amount of Rs. 48,10,939/- claimed as deduction u/s 80IB(10) was also disallowed and the assessment was completed at Rs. 2,88,80,000/-. I.T.A. No. 143/D/2010 & 568/2010 Assessment Year 2006-07 4. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the First Appellate Authority and, inter alia, objected to the assessment on the following issues – i. Disallowance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SWATANTRA LAND AND FINANCE PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07

264/-. Further, the amount of Rs. 48,10,939/- claimed as deduction u/s 80IB(10) was also disallowed and the assessment was completed at Rs. 2,88,80,000/-. I.T.A. No. 143/D/2010 & 568/2010 Assessment Year 2006-07 4. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the First Appellate Authority and, inter alia, objected to the assessment on the following issues – i. Disallowance

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

property, from which income was generated was the trust property; the sale deed in favour of the assessee showed that he purchased the property as a trustee and there was a subsequent deed creating a trust which recorded a corpus of Rs. 2 lakhs left in the hands of the assessee. In this case it was held that

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

264/-) 4. That the learned AO/DRP has included amount of Rs. 24,86,030/- twice both in capital gain calculation and also as income from other sources. Inspite of Hon’ble DRP direction to record reason on the alleged treatment of impugned amount, no justification has been given in assessment order dated 26.06.2022 u/s 143(3) read with section 144C

SHRI GURVINDER SINGH SURI,NEW DELHI vs. PR CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2644/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Gurvinder Singh Suri, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Tax (Central)-1, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaps8291D Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.05.2020

house property, share of business profit, capital gains from transfer of property and income from other sources. The interest earned by the assessee was Rs.44,02,030/-. The assessee has offered to tax an amount of Rs.32,02,030/- under the head “income from other sources” after claiming deduction on account of 2 Gurvinder Singh Suri payment of interest

M/S. CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Housing Development Company 49 Taxmann.com 98, ITA No. 38/2014 (Karnataka HC) dated 25.07.2014(Para 11) 4. Sri Raj Kumar Arora ITA No. 56/11 (Allahabad HC) dated 1.07.2014 5. Gopal Das Bhadruka 27 Taxmann.com 167 (Andhra Pradesh HC) (Para 5) 6. Mukundray K,. Shah 290 ITR 433 (SC) where the Supreme court held that a print out of audited books

M/S. CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Housing Development Company 49 Taxmann.com 98, ITA No. 38/2014 (Karnataka HC) dated 25.07.2014(Para 11) 4. Sri Raj Kumar Arora ITA No. 56/11 (Allahabad HC) dated 1.07.2014 5. Gopal Das Bhadruka 27 Taxmann.com 167 (Andhra Pradesh HC) (Para 5) 6. Mukundray K,. Shah 290 ITR 433 (SC) where the Supreme court held that a print out of audited books

CENTRAL GOVT.EMP. CONSUMER COO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is dismissed and pending applications

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

House of Lords decided that a “matter of degree” is a question of fact and it has also been decided that a finding by the Commissioners of a fact under a misapprehension of law or want of evidence to support a finding are both questions of law. 25. The Privy Council in CIT v. Laxminarain Badridas

IMPROVEMENT TRUST,FATEHABAD vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), ROHTAK

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyimprovement Trust Fatehabad, Vs. Ito(Exemptions), Near Bus Stand, Rohtak Fatehabad Pan: Aaati6435P (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property let out assesse, and toward which it has (subsequently) a single precise ground. The claim is, by all counts, without merit. This is for the simple reason that the income of a charitable trust or institution, subject to its application for charitable purposes, for which it has been in fact formed (per its Constituting charter) is exempt from

ASHOK LAVASA,NEW DELHI vs. CIRCLE 67 (1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanashok Lavasa, Vs. Acit, Circle 67 (1), House No.32, New Moti Bagh, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 003. (Pan : Aatpl5376R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 Date Of Order : 21.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 09.10.2024 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Filed Appeal On 18.12.2021 For The Year Under Consideration Against The Order Of Cpc Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 26.02.2021 & The Order Was Served On 26.02.2021. There Was A Delay Of 264 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A). Ld. Cit (A) Condoned The Delay In Filing The Appeal In View Of The Principles Of Natural Justice. Ld. Cit (A)

264 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal in view of the principles of natural justice. Ld. CIT (A) 2 observed that the assessee was denied TDS credit of Rs.34,456/- which was made on house property income. He observed that the assessee was having income from

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

264 ITR 249 (Del) to say that during the course of search, statement of the assessee is recorded under Section 132(4) in respect of any cash, amount, stock or jewellery etc. that individual is entitled to claim immunity by virtue of fifth Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The decision in P.R. Mitrani Vs. Commissioner