ITO, WARD-16(3), NEW DELHI vs. MAUVE STAR DEVELOPERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraincome Tax Officer Vs. Mauve Star Developers Ward 16(3) Private Limited Room No. 304, U-7, Ground Floor, C.R. Building, Green Park Extn. New Delhi - 110002 New Delhi – 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcm2402N Appellant .. Respondent

house property under the provisions of section 22 to 27 of the Act. Hence, in our view the depreciation cannot be allowed. 10. Coming to this issue of maintenance and repair expenses, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled for claim of deduction of 30% of rent and, accordingly, the Assessing Officer will allow standard deduction

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

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property". 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 section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property". 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 section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property". 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 section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property". 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 section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property". 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 section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged

TECHNIP UK LTD.,GURGAON vs. DIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

293 A of the Act are applicable for the purpose of computing income in accordance with those sections. 16 21. He submitted that provisions of section 42 of the Act applies to companies engaged in the business of prospecting for, or extraction or production of mineral oil, in relation to which it has entered into an agreement with the Central

ACIT CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ansal Housing Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Ansal Circle-2(2), Housing & Construction Ltd.), New Delhi 606, 6Th Floor, Indra Prakash, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca0377R (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Ansal Housing & Circle-2(2), Construction Ltd., New Delhi 15, Ugf, Indraprakash Building, 21 Barakhamba, Cp, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca0377R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv. Sh. Jitendra Bhati, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

property” under section 22 of the Act. Both the parties are very much ad idem that the instant issue is no more res integra in the assessee’s case as the hon’ble jurisdiction high court in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd. (2013) 213 Taxman 143(Del) has already decided the same in the department

ANSAL HOUSING LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ansal Housing Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Ansal Circle-2(2), Housing & Construction Ltd.), New Delhi 606, 6Th Floor, Indra Prakash, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca0377R (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Ansal Housing & Circle-2(2), Construction Ltd., New Delhi 15, Ugf, Indraprakash Building, 21 Barakhamba, Cp, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca0377R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv. Sh. Jitendra Bhati, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

property” under section 22 of the Act. Both the parties are very much ad idem that the instant issue is no more res integra in the assessee’s case as the hon’ble jurisdiction high court in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd. (2013) 213 Taxman 143(Del) has already decided the same in the department

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

house property’. The AO found no error in the details so filed nor Ld. PCIT has pointed out any error or any occasion where the tax could not be less charged therefore, it cannot be held that the order is pre-judicial to the interest of Revenue or erroneous and accordingly, the direction of Ld.PCIT to make verifications

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. YASH PAL MENDIRATTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

house no. 10, road no.42, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. He stated that being uncle of Sh. Sunil Kumar and Sh. Praveen Kumar (i.e. Sh. Sunil Kumar and Sh. Praveen Kumar being the nephews of Sh. R. K. Chawla) he had signed the sale deed as a witness. Further he had specifically identified his signatures on the sale deed

ACIT, CIRCLE CC 15, NEW DELHI vs. ALKA MENDIRATTA , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

house no. 10, road no.42, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. He stated that being uncle of Sh. Sunil Kumar and Sh. Praveen Kumar (i.e. Sh. Sunil Kumar and Sh. Praveen Kumar being the nephews of Sh. R. K. Chawla) he had signed the sale deed as a witness. Further he had specifically identified his signatures on the sale deed

M/S. RENU SHAMLAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

house property” and upholding the addition to the extent of Rs.8 lacs deleting the balance addition of Rs.40,000/-. In the said background the Ld.AR submitted that there is no dispute on the fact that the said property was lying vacant. The reasons for the property lying vacant it was submitted has all along remained the same, namely that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

293 have taken the same view and observed, ―it is an established principle of law that a party is entitled to show and prove that admission made by him is in fact not correct and true. Such admission raise a presumption against the persons making the admission but such presumption is rebutable. 36. A very heavy onus lay upon

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

293 and 394), Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Section 14A), Cotton Textiles Companies Management of Undertaking, Liquidation and Reconstruction) Act, 1967 (sections 4(1), 5(1)(2). By the word 'undertaking is meant the entire organisation. These provisions indicate that the company whether it has a plant or whether it has an organisation is considered as one whole unit

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

293 and 394), Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Section 14A), Cotton Textiles Companies Management of Undertaking, Liquidation and Reconstruction) Act, 1967 (sections 4(1), 5(1)(2). By the word 'undertaking is meant the entire organisation. These provisions indicate that the company whether it has a plant or whether it has an organisation is considered as one whole unit

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEEPSONS SOUTHEND, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

property income and remaining amount of Rs.5,92,477/- was claimed against business income. The Assessing Officer disallowed all these expenses stating that the payments of Rs.16,04,832/- were made to MCD not by the assessee but by sister concern M/s. Deepsons Departmental Stores. It was also observed that these payments were not in the nature of house