DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

House Property" For that, we will refer to certain legal principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court (as taken from head notes) as under :- a. Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT [2017] 394 ITR 592(SC) Section 22, read with sections 27

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM vs. DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD., GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

House Property" For that, we will refer to certain legal principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court (as taken from head notes) as under :- a. Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT [2017] 394 ITR 592(SC) Section 22, read with sections 27

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

House Property" For that, we will refer to certain legal principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court (as taken from head notes) as under :- a. Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT [2017] 394 ITR 592(SC) Section 22, read with sections 27

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

House Property" For that, we will refer to certain legal principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court (as taken from head notes) as under :- a. Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT [2017] 394 ITR 592(SC) Section 22, read with sections 27

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

House Property" For that, we will refer to certain legal principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court (as taken from head notes) as under :- a. Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT [2017] 394 ITR 592(SC) Section 22, read with sections 27

SELECT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

House Property' were by virtue of section 27(iii b), the appellant was 'deemed owner' of the premises as it had acquired

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

house property, were relied: • Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. vs. CIT: 44 ITR 362 (SC) • CIT vs. Velankani Information Systems (P.) Ltd.: 265 CTR 250 (Kar) • CIT vs. Mohiddin Hotels P. Ltd. & Ors.: 284 ITR 229 (Bom) • CIT vs. Goel Brothers: 331 ITR 344 (All) • PCIT vs. M/s Krome Planet Interiors

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. GALGOTIA BOOKS & DEPARTMENT STORE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are allowed

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

27. On the appeal (FPA-MLA-2147/DLI/2018) of IDBI, the appellate tribunal, by its decision dated 10.05.2018, set aside the said attachment of the two properties under PMLA upholding the contention that the said assets had not been acquired by money- laundering and thus could not be described as “proceeds of crime”, it being noted that the two shops

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. SALDI CHITS PVT. LTD.,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

27. On the appeal (FPA-MLA-2147/DLI/2018) of IDBI, the appellate tribunal, by its decision dated 10.05.2018, set aside the said attachment of the two properties under PMLA upholding the contention that the said assets had not been acquired by money- laundering and thus could not be described as “proceeds of crime”, it being noted that the two shops

ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. RCUBE PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma Ita No. 6879/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16

Property Act has concluded that the assessee is deemed owner for the purpose of Section 27(iii)(b) of the Act and therefore Section 22 of the Act making income from house

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OMAXE BUILDHOME (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu Assessment Year : 2008-09 Deputy Cit, Vs. M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Central Circle-4, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, New Delhi. Kalkaji, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Vs. Deputy Cit, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, Central Circle-4, Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

27,677 Omaxe City, Palwal 46,86,6233 By holding that deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of profits derived from that part of housing projects which consists of unbuilt housing sites cannot be allowed. (iii) Misinterpreted the provisions of sec. 80IB(10) by holdng that the conditions (a) and (c) of the aforesaid section regarding commencement

M/S. IDEAL HITECH ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house property".” 20. The above section unambiguously provides that properties used for the purpose of business are outside the ambit of section 22. In the case in hand, the property on account of which addition has been made considering the deemed annual value is the registered office of the company in accordance under section 12 of the Companies

SHIVANI MADAN vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI 01 & ANR.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

section. (ii) the holder of an impartible estate shall be deemed to be the individual owner of all the properties comprised in the estate; ] “Owner of house property”, “annual charge”, etc., defined. 27

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF ASSETS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

House Property” 13 ITA Nos.8524 to 8526/Del./2019 For that, we will refer to certain legal principles as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court { as taken from head notes} as under :- a. Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT [2017] 394 ITR 592 (SC) Section 22, read with sections 27

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF ASSETS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

House Property” 13 ITA Nos.8524 to 8526/Del./2019 For that, we will refer to certain legal principles as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court { as taken from head notes} as under :- a. Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT [2017] 394 ITR 592 (SC) Section 22, read with sections 27

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF ASSETS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

House Property” 13 ITA Nos.8524 to 8526/Del./2019 For that, we will refer to certain legal principles as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court { as taken from head notes} as under :- a. Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT [2017] 394 ITR 592 (SC) Section 22, read with sections 27

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

house property. The CBDT Circular No. 1 of 2015 dated 21.01.2015 explains that the amendment applies in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. Consequently, the amendment will not apply to the case of the assessee which pertains to AY 2012-13. 22. It may be stated that the Ld. AO did not record any finding

M/S RAM KRISHAN ASSOCIATE P.LT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

house property”, the assessee must be the owner of the property. ITA Nos. 731, 732 and 735 of 2005 Page 8 of 12 12. The term “owner” has been defined in Section 27

M/S RAM KRISHAN ASSOCIATES P.L vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

house property”, the assessee must be the owner of the property. ITA Nos. 731, 732 and 735 of 2005 Page 8 of 12 12. The term “owner” has been defined in Section 27