Search: house property

PALIWAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,PANIPAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 5878/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

house property’. 24.1 The AO also noticed that the assessee had claimed depreciation on entire property at B-14, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi at Rs. 12,16,677/-. Considering that the entire was not being used for the business of the assessee and at least half of it was in occupation of group concerns, the AO disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT vs. PALIWAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., PANIPAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 2083/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

house property’. 24.1 The AO also noticed that the assessee had claimed depreciation on entire property at B-14, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi at Rs. 12,16,677/-. Considering that the entire was not being used for the business of the assessee and at least half of it was in occupation of group concerns, the AO disallowed

DCIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT vs. PALIWAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., PANIPAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 644/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

house property’. 24.1 The AO also noticed that the assessee had claimed depreciation on entire property at B-14, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi at Rs. 12,16,677/-. Considering that the entire was not being used for the business of the assessee and at least half of it was in occupation of group concerns, the AO disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT vs. PALIWAL OVERSEAS P.LTD, PANIPAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 1263/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

house property’. 24.1 The AO also noticed that the assessee had claimed depreciation on entire property at B-14, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi at Rs. 12,16,677/-. Considering that the entire was not being used for the business of the assessee and at least half of it was in occupation of group concerns, the AO disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT vs. PALIWAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., PANIPAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 2082/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

house property’. 24.1 The AO also noticed that the assessee had claimed depreciation on entire property at B-14, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi at Rs. 12,16,677/-. Considering that the entire was not being used for the business of the assessee and at least half of it was in occupation of group concerns, the AO disallowed