COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

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

house property, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83. Mr Singh is right

VINOD KOHLI,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman\N\Nita No.896/Del/2021\N(Assessment Year: 2012-13)\N\Nsmt. Vinod Kohli,\Nc.W. – 66, Malibu Town,\Nsohna Road,\Ngurugram – 122 018 (Haryana).\N(Pan : Amipk8299D)\N(Appellant)\N\Nvs.\N\Nacit, Circle 35 (1),\Nnew Delhi.\N(Respondent)\N\Nassessee By : Ms. Monalisa Maity, Advocate\Nrevenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing : 13.03.2025\Ndate Of Order : 21.05.2025\N\Norder\N\N1. 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 24.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-\N\N\"1. That Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Based On Incorrect Assumptions, Conjectures & Surmises.\N\N2. That Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Reassessment In The Captioned Matter Is Invalid Because -\N\N2.

House property. The exact reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer have been reproduced in the preceding paras. The specific submissions of the Appellant in regard to the aforesaid four properties are stated as under:\n\n3.1 At the outset it is submitted that the Assessing Officer had wrongly assessed the annual lettable value of the property viz. \"A2/29, Ground Floor

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

292B of the Act. The Assessing Officer even though recording that no return had been filed and no notice under section 143(2) had been issued, continued to proceed as if he was making an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Hence, the order made under section 153A/ 143(3) is not legally tenable and ought to have

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

292B of the Act. The Assessing Officer even though recording that no return had been filed and no notice under section 143(2) had been issued, continued to proceed as if he was making an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Hence, the order made under section 153A/ 143(3) is not legally tenable and ought to have

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

292B of the Act. The Assessing Officer even though recording that no return had been filed and no notice under section 143(2) had been issued, continued to proceed as if he was making an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Hence, the order made under section 153A/ 143(3) is not legally tenable and ought to have

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

292B of the Act. The Assessing Officer even though recording that no return had been filed and no notice under section 143(2) had been issued, continued to proceed as if he was making an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Hence, the order made under section 153A/ 143(3) is not legally tenable and ought to have

SH. CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

house property\n(As discussed in return)\nLong Term Capital Gain\nClaim of deduction U/s.54F\nRs.12,60,858/-\nRs.3,00,00,000/-\nRs.3,60,95,500/-\nRs.1,86,44,062/-\n7. In ITA No.3719/Del/2017 in pursuance to assessment order dated\n13.05.2016Ld. AO's order in penalty proceedings vide order dated 25.11.2016\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty

SH. HARNEET SINGH CHANDHOKE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Copy of which have been provided to the assesse during the course of assessment proceedings) reveals that there was investment in the name of Ms. Jyotika Chandhoke for ground floor (Commercial) in Indirapuram Habitat Centre Project, Ghaziabad for a total consideration of Rs.33,43,560/-, out of 5 ITA. No.3642/DEL/2016 which

CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

house property\n(As discussed in return)\nLong Term Capital Gain\nClaim of deduction U/s.54F\nRs.12,60,858/-\nRs.3,00,00,000/-\nRs.3,60,95,500/-\nRs.1,86,44,062/-\n7. In ITA No.3719/Del/2017 in pursuance to assessment order dated\n13.05.2016Ld. AO's order in penalty proceedings vide order dated 25.11.2016\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty

SH. CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

house property\n(As discussed in return)\n\nRs.3,00,00,000/-\n\nLong Term Capital Gain\nRs.3,60,95,500/-\n\nClaim of deduction U/s.54F\nRs.1,86,44,062/-\n\n7. In ITA No.3719/Del/2017 in pursuance to assessment order dated\n13.05.2016Ld. AO's order in penalty proceedings vide order dated 25.11.2016\nunder Section

SHIV KUMAR NAYYAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

house property and income from other sources. The ld. AO completed the assessment for the AY 2011-12 u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2018 determining the total income at Rs.1,32,05,230/- after making various additions thereon. The said search assessment order framed by the ld. AO in the last page in para 10 stated

SHIV KUMAR NAYYAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

house property and income from other sources. The ld. AO completed the assessment for the AY 2011-12 u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2018 determining the total income at Rs.1,32,05,230/- after making various additions thereon. The said search assessment order framed by the ld. AO in the last page in para 10 stated

SHIV KUMAR NAYYAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

house property and income from other sources. The ld. AO completed the assessment for the AY 2011-12 u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2018 determining the total income at Rs.1,32,05,230/- after making various additions thereon. The said search assessment order framed by the ld. AO in the last page in para 10 stated

DCIT, CC-20, NEW DELHI vs. SHIV KUMAR NAYYAR, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

house property and income from other sources. The ld. AO completed the assessment for the AY 2011-12 u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2018 determining the total income at Rs.1,32,05,230/- after making various additions thereon. The said search assessment order framed by the ld. AO in the last page in para 10 stated

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

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

house property, and thus the AO brought to tax LTCG and also levied penalty u/s 271(1)(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

JITINDER SINGH CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

Housing Pvt. Ltd., Second & Third Floor had been sold in assessment year 2014-15 and the First Floor was sold in assessment year 2015-16. It was pointed out that the assessee obtained valuation report of the said property from registered valuer M/s Paramjeet Associates to ascertain the fair market value of the land and structure

M/S. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. I. C. Sudhir, Jm Ita Nos. 2203 To 2207/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09 M/S New Okhla Industrial Vs Acit, Circle-1, Development Authority, Sector-6, Nodia Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaln0120A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Sunil Kumar, Dinesh Verma, Raj Rani Lakra & Reema Malik, Cas Revenue By: Sh. Gunjan Prashad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 20.01.2014 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2008-09 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Noida.

property and Income of a State shall be exempt from Union Taxation. 6. The ld. AO has disregarded the pronouncement of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ITR 102, 2012(250). 7. The ld. AO while making the above addition has failed to take