RAMESH CHANDER BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 53(5), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house i.e. at Defense Colony Gurgaon and Malibu Town Gurgaon, although both were jointly owned with his wife Smt. Savita Bhasin. The reliance placed on the above judicial rulings brings out co-jointly owing a residential property cannot be treated as absolute ownership and thus, the deduction 12 ITA.No.161/Del./2020 Smt. Savita Bhasin L.R. of (wife) Shri Ramesh Chander

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. ASHOK KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6105/Del/2017: Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Ashok Kumar, Central Circle-26, 13, Ashoka Avenue, Dlf Farms, New Delhi-110055 Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepc1877D

section 269 UA, assessee become deemed owner of the property for the purpose of taxing him as the owner of the property. 2. The plain reading of law itself is very clear that if the property in question is taken on lease for more than 12 years the lessee shall be treated as deemed owner of the property and rental

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

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

269 UA (d) in order to understand the meaning of the word 'transfer' for the purposes of Section 2 (47) (vi). Therefore, that entire scheme has to be given effect to. In other words, it is not possible to omit the reference to Section 269UA(d) (i) which in turn brings in Section 269UA(f) (i). The ITAT has therefore

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

269 UA (d) in order to understand the meaning of the word 'transfer' for the purposes of Section 2 (47) (vi). Therefore, that entire scheme has to be given effect to. In other words, it is not possible to omit the reference to Section 269UA(d) (i) which in turn brings in Section 269UA(f) (i). The ITAT has therefore

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

269 UA (d) in order to understand the meaning of the word 'transfer' for the purposes of Section 2 (47) (vi). Therefore, that entire scheme has to be given effect to. In other words, it is not possible to omit the reference to Section 269UA(d) (i) which in turn brings in Section 269UA(f) (i). The ITAT has therefore

MANOJ MITTAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

House Property”, in the hands of assessee in respect of these properties. However, the Ld. CIT(A) took the view that the assessee was to be treated as owner of the properties u/s 269 UA of Income Tax Act as the assessee had entered into the lease agreement with Sh. N.M. Mittal for a period of 30 years in respect

ANJU CHAWLA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 alongwith survey operations u/s 133 A of the Income Tax Act 1961 were undertaken at various residential and business premises of Aseem kumar Gupta & Group and other beneficiary group of cases on 26.03.2010. Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MODI RUBBER LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/S Modi Rubber Ltd Circle – 5(1) 4 – 7C, Dda Shopping Centre New Delhi New Friends Colony New Delhi Pan : Aaacm 2062 R [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr

house property’. 11 14. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd reported at 169 ITR 597 [SC]. The facts of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision is reproduced hereinbelow: “The respondent- assessee company, carried on business of manufacture

RAJ KUMAR CHAWLA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuvs Raj Kumar Chawla Acit A-7, Nirman Vihar, Central Circle-Ix Delhi. New Delhi. Aalpc1209J Appellant Respondent

house property Rs. 4,36,036/-; 2. Addition on account of un-explained loan of Rs. 2,29,73,630/-; 3. Addition on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) on protective basis Rs. 46,588/-. 3. The assessee challenged the above additions before the Ld. CIT(A) and raised various grounds of appeal. The assessee also filed application

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1) NEW DELHI vs. M/S C.J. INTERNATIOJAL HOTELS LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

house property”. 2010:DHC:5567-DB 10. The assessee preferred appeal against this order before the CIT (A). In this appeal, the assessee took an additional ground predicated on the provisions of Section 27(iii) read with 269

M/S. VOITH PAPER GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

property in the goods thereupon passes to the buyer. Such assent may be expressed or implied, and may be given either before or after the appropriation is made. (2) Delivery to carrier-Where, in pursuance of the contract, the seller delivers the goods to the buyer or to a carrier or other bailee (whether named by the buyer

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

269/- as unexplained cash credits is fully warranted, and these grounds are dismissed.” 4. Assessee is in appeal and for convenience the grounds for A.Y. 2015- 16 are reproduced below; “(a) Because the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer (AO)/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) has acted against the principles of natural justice

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

269/- as unexplained cash credits is fully warranted, and these grounds are dismissed.” 4. Assessee is in appeal and for convenience the grounds for A.Y. 2015- 16 are reproduced below; “(a) Because the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer (AO)/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) has acted against the principles of natural justice

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

269/- as unexplained cash credits is fully warranted, and these grounds are dismissed.” 4. Assessee is in appeal and for convenience the grounds for A.Y. 2015- 16 are reproduced below; “(a) Because the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer (AO)/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) has acted against the principles of natural justice

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

269/- as unexplained cash credits is fully warranted, and these grounds are dismissed.” 4. Assessee is in appeal and for convenience the grounds for A.Y. 2015- 16 are reproduced below; “(a) Because the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer (AO)/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) has acted against the principles of natural justice

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

269/- as unexplained cash credits is fully warranted, and these grounds are dismissed.” 4. Assessee is in appeal and for convenience the grounds for A.Y. 2015- 16 are reproduced below; “(a) Because the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer (AO)/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) has acted against the principles of natural justice

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

269/- as unexplained cash credits is fully warranted, and these grounds are dismissed.” 4. Assessee is in appeal and for convenience the grounds for A.Y. 2015- 16 are reproduced below; “(a) Because the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer (AO)/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) has acted against the principles of natural justice