ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

282 (SC). 23. We hold therefore that CIT is not right in holding that AO failed to make enquiries or to apply his mind and allowed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. We therefore vacate his order and restore that of the AO. It is, however, except for the construction found to be in excess built up area

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

282 (SC). 23. We hold therefore that CIT is not right in holding that AO failed to make enquiries or to apply his mind and allowed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. We therefore vacate his order and restore that of the AO. It is, however, except for the construction found to be in excess built up area

THE ACIT.,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

282 (SC). 23. We hold therefore that CIT is not right in holding that AO failed to make enquiries or to apply his mind and allowed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. We therefore vacate his order and restore that of the AO. It is, however, except for the construction found to be in excess built up area

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

282 (SC). 23. We hold therefore that CIT is not right in holding that AO failed to make enquiries or to apply his mind and allowed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. We therefore vacate his order and restore that of the AO. It is, however, except for the construction found to be in excess built up area

GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

house property Under Chapter IV-C of the Act. Being so the objection raised by the Assessing Officer that the deduction as claimed u/s 24(a) would be a duplication of the expenses is erroneous and unsustainable in law. It is only for this reason that in every year since FY 1995-96 to the last assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. CHETAN GUPTA

The appeal is dismissed but, in the facts and circumstances of the

house property on account of his half share in a property in Delhi and some interest income. The AO therefore concluded that the Assessee had not fully and truly disclosed all material facts for the AY in question. The AO noted that in a statement dated 24th September 2007, recorded by the ADIT (Inv.), Ludhiana, the Assessee denied knowledge

TEXACO OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner as indicated

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri L. P. Sahu

section 14A were not applicable to the instant case.” Ground No. 1 & 2. 3. Apropos these grounds of appeal, we have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant materials placed on record before us. The Ld. Assessee’s Representative challenging the action of the A.O and ld. CIT(A) submitted that the A.O has grossly erred

SMT. AMARJEET KAUR,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

282 square meters in Block- H, situated in the layout plan of Vikas Puri Residential Scheme along with 1/4th proportionate share of stilt parking etc. 10. Entire dispute in this matter revolves around the contention of the assessee to the effect that the assessee purchased the property on 30.3.2012 itself but since the finishing work of the property

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

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

282 ITR 251 held that under section 69 of the Act an additions on account of unexplained investments can be made as deemed income, if it established that assessee has made investment which are not recorded in the books maintained by the assessee. It is well settled that the burden is on the person who makes allegation and to discharge

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

282 ITR 251 held that under section 69 of the Act an additions on account of unexplained investments can be made as deemed income, if it established that assessee has made investment which are not recorded in the books maintained by the assessee. It is well settled that the burden is on the person who makes allegation and to discharge

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

282 ITR 251 held that under section 69 of the Act an additions on account of unexplained investments can be made as deemed income, if it established that assessee has made investment which are not recorded in the books maintained by the assessee. It is well settled that the burden is on the person who makes allegation and to discharge

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

282 ITR 251 held that under section 69 of the Act an additions on account of unexplained investments can be made as deemed income, if it established that assessee has made investment which are not recorded in the books maintained by the assessee. It is well settled that the burden is on the person who makes allegation and to discharge

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SWASTIK COMMERCIAL P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

282 (2) of the Act. Statement of Rattan Gupta 42. The Court has examined the statement recorded by the Department of Mr. Rattan Gupta, CA, on 24th April 1990 under Section 131 of the Act. He first confirmed what he had stated in his previous statement recorded on 15th March 1990 under Section 132 (4) of the Act. He stated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- DELHI vs. M/S PASUPATI NATH COMMR. P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

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

282 (2) of the Act. Statement of Rattan Gupta 42. The Court has examined the statement recorded by the Department of Mr. Rattan Gupta, CA, on 24th April 1990 under Section 131 of the Act. He first confirmed what he had stated in his previous statement recorded on 15th March 1990 under Section 132 (4) of the Act. He stated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- DELHI vs. M/S MANSAROVER COMMERCIAL P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

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

282 (2) of the Act. Statement of Rattan Gupta 42. The Court has examined the statement recorded by the Department of Mr. Rattan Gupta, CA, on 24th April 1990 under Section 131 of the Act. He first confirmed what he had stated in his previous statement recorded on 15th March 1990 under Section 132 (4) of the Act. He stated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S TRISHUL COMMERCIAL P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

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

282 (2) of the Act. Statement of Rattan Gupta 42. The Court has examined the statement recorded by the Department of Mr. Rattan Gupta, CA, on 24th April 1990 under Section 131 of the Act. He first confirmed what he had stated in his previous statement recorded on 15th March 1990 under Section 132 (4) of the Act. He stated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SOVERIGN COMMERCIAL P. LTD

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

282 (2) of the Act. Statement of Rattan Gupta 42. The Court has examined the statement recorded by the Department of Mr. Rattan Gupta, CA, on 24th April 1990 under Section 131 of the Act. He first confirmed what he had stated in his previous statement recorded on 15th March 1990 under Section 132 (4) of the Act. He stated