AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

274,010,351 Page 28 ITA Nos.1868 & 1869/Del/2025 Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19 & 2020-21) Less: Less: Depreciation as per Income Tax Act Revised Loss as per Section 263 of the Act Computation as per Original Return Loss as per Original Return Excess Loss be C/F Revised Computation of Income Computation as per Section 263 Profit

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

274 for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee is mainly aggrieved by disallowance of standard deduction of Rs. 1,20,42,749/- under section 24(1) by re- characterizing the income from house property

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

274 r.w.s. 271 (l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ,which is bad in law as it does not specify under which limb of section 271 (l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the penalty proceeding had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. That the appellant craves, leave

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

house property, and thus the AO brought to tax LTCG and also levied penalty u/s 271(l)(c) ; Notes that CIT(A) had deleted the penalty by applying the ratio laid down by Karnataka HC in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory case; Further takes note of Bangalore ITAT ruling in case of P.M.Abdulla, wherein it was clarified that the said

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

274 read with section 270A of the Act (103-123) That on 7.3.2024, learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3, Delhi proceeded to levy penalty of Rs. 94,120/- in an order dated 7.3.2024 u/s 270A of the Act, for alleged under reporting income. That on 7.3.2024, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi dismissed

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was issued and penalty @ 100% on such additions were made. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 16 28. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) referred to the judicial pronouncements and observed that mere treatment and re-classification of claim towards business loss as speculative loss

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was issued and penalty @ 100% on such additions were made. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 16 28. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) referred to the judicial pronouncements and observed that mere treatment and re-classification of claim towards business loss as speculative loss

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was issued and penalty @ 100% on such additions were made. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 16 28. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) referred to the judicial pronouncements and observed that mere treatment and re-classification of claim towards business loss as speculative loss

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was issued and penalty @ 100% on such additions were made. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 16 28. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) referred to the judicial pronouncements and observed that mere treatment and re-classification of claim towards business loss as speculative loss

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was issued and penalty @ 100% on such additions were made. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 16 28. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) referred to the judicial pronouncements and observed that mere treatment and re-classification of claim towards business loss as speculative loss

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was issued and penalty @ 100% on such additions were made. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 16 28. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) referred to the judicial pronouncements and observed that mere treatment and re-classification of claim towards business loss as speculative loss

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was issued and penalty @ 100% on such additions were made. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 16 28. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) referred to the judicial pronouncements and observed that mere treatment and re-classification of claim towards business loss as speculative loss

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was issued and penalty @ 100% on such additions were made. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 16 28. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) referred to the judicial pronouncements and observed that mere treatment and re-classification of claim towards business loss as speculative loss

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

property by the assessee. 6.10.6 We, therefore, hold that the income derived by the assessee from running Business Centre amounting in all to Rs. 1,17,76,874/- and income of Rs. 13,43,161/- by way of reimbursement of expense constitute Business income and are assessable as such. The Ld. AO is directed to modify the assessment and carry

QUIPPO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property, as before him the appellant is stated to have received the rental income from Punjab National Bank for provision of ATM machines and except the agreement, no other evidences were furnished. He further held that interest income of Rs. 2982000/- being interest on fixed deposit receipt is chargeable to tax as income from other sources

QUIPPO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property, as before him the appellant is stated to have received the rental income from Punjab National Bank for provision of ATM machines and except the agreement, no other evidences were furnished. He further held that interest income of Rs. 2982000/- being interest on fixed deposit receipt is chargeable to tax as income from other sources

RAVI JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

274,981/- Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has taken various arguments pertaining to eligibility u/s. 54F which are as under : There have been controversy between taxpayer and income tax department whenever taxpayer claims exemption under section 54 for investment made in multiple houses. Question that now arise whether the prefix 'a' used before the word residential house

SNEH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

house property for construction and spent entire consideration in purchase of plot and construction there on within 3 years of the sale of original assets. PB 183 is the copy of detail and source of construction expenses for the subject residential property. PB 185 is the copy of assessee's reply dated 18.12.2018 before Ld. AO against the show cause