DAIKIN AIRCONDITIONING INDIA PVT LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the claim of the appellant was that these were private transactions without any further explanation. 8.7. Evidence in respect of Allegation (i): It is the case of prosecution that eight cheques of CWC amounting to ₹5,12,857/- were deposited in the account No. 42861 in the name of R.L. Kawale (A-5) (since deceased) by appellant

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XI vs. AMIT MALHOTRA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the claim of the appellant was that these were private transactions without any further explanation. 8.7. Evidence in respect of Allegation (i): It is the case of prosecution that eight cheques of CWC amounting to ₹5,12,857/- were deposited in the account No. 42861 in the name of R.L. Kawale (A-5) (since deceased) by appellant

PR. CIT CENTRAL-1 vs. AMRAPALI GRAND

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

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the claim of the appellant was that these were private transactions without any further explanation. 8.7. Evidence in respect of Allegation (i): It is the case of prosecution that eight cheques of CWC amounting to ₹5,12,857/- were deposited in the account No. 42861 in the name of R.L. Kawale (A-5) (since deceased) by appellant

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.

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

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the claim of the appellant was that these were private transactions without any further explanation. 8.7. Evidence in respect of Allegation (i): It is the case of prosecution that eight cheques of CWC amounting to ₹5,12,857/- were deposited in the account No. 42861 in the name of R.L. Kawale (A-5) (since deceased) by appellant

COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-II vs. SPN MILK PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

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

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the claim of the appellant was that these were private transactions without any further explanation. 8.7. Evidence in respect of Allegation (i): It is the case of prosecution that eight cheques of CWC amounting to ₹5,12,857/- were deposited in the account No. 42861 in the name of R.L. Kawale (A-5) (since deceased) by appellant

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(CENTRAL)-I vs. SIDDHARATH SAREEN

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

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the claim of the appellant was that these were private transactions without any further explanation. 8.7. Evidence in respect of Allegation (i): It is the case of prosecution that eight cheques of CWC amounting to ₹5,12,857/- were deposited in the account No. 42861 in the name of R.L. Kawale (A-5) (since deceased) by appellant

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. JUBLIANT OIL & GAS PVT.LTD.

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

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the claim of the appellant was that these were private transactions without any further explanation. 8.7. Evidence in respect of Allegation (i): It is the case of prosecution that eight cheques of CWC amounting to ₹5,12,857/- were deposited in the account No. 42861 in the name of R.L. Kawale (A-5) (since deceased) by appellant

DELTA COLONIZERS LTD.,NEWDELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE -7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed on ground no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2014-15

section 24(a) of the Act. 11. On further appeal, the CIT(A) unlike the order for the last Assessment Year i.e., A.Y. 2013-14, took a different stand and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in treating rental income from use of amenities as Income from Other Sources'. The CIT(A) distinguished the cases relied upon

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

property. The said tax position was also duly accepted by\nthe department in the preceding and succeeding year. The assessee\nalready claimed standard deduction under Section 24(a) of the Act to the\ntune of Rs.57,81,40,137/- upon making suo motu disallowance of other\nexpenses amounting to Rs.13,68,61,227/- in regard to the house\nproperty income

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

property. The said tax position was also duly accepted by\nthe department in the preceding and succeeding year. The assessee\nalready claimed standard deduction under Section 24(a) of the Act to the\ntune of Rs.57,81,40,137/- upon making suo motu disallowance of other\nexpenses amounting to Rs.13,68,61,227/- in regard to the house\nproperty income

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

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

properties claimed as being vacant farm lands needs verification by the AO for ascertaining the correctness of the claim that no house/building was constructed on such lands. Thus the issue is hereby, restored to AO. If it is found true that during the relevant time, no house property/commercial space were constructed thereon. No addition would be called for. Thus, Ground

NEW HORIZON LOGIWARE (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 18(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2014-15 New Horizon Logiware (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 18(2), Ltd., New Delhi Resham House, Farm No. 9/1, Amaltas Avenues, Westend Green, Farm Society Samalakha, New Delhi – 110 037 (Pan: Aaecn1331Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 22 of the Act and income received out of it, has to be assessed as income from house property. Consequently, he computed the income from warehouse at Rs. (-) 1,51,524/- under this head after allowing the statutory deduction us/ 24(a) and interest expenses u/s 24(b) of the Act. Since the receipts from warehouse was computed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ACI WIRELESS LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

House 38. It is argued that the prosecution has tried to suggest that since the nature of work was confidential, therefore, an inference is drawn from the statement of A3/DW-1 to show that a room was provided to the persons from DPE office for doing the official work which was supposed to be done CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX : DELHI -V vs. RITED LTD.

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

House 38. It is argued that the prosecution has tried to suggest that since the nature of work was confidential, therefore, an inference is drawn from the statement of A3/DW-1 to show that a room was provided to the persons from DPE office for doing the official work which was supposed to be done CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX: DELHI-V vs. RITES LTD.

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

House 38. It is argued that the prosecution has tried to suggest that since the nature of work was confidential, therefore, an inference is drawn from the statement of A3/DW-1 to show that a room was provided to the persons from DPE office for doing the official work which was supposed to be done CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. R.L. KHERA CHARITABLE TRUST

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

House 38. It is argued that the prosecution has tried to suggest that since the nature of work was confidential, therefore, an inference is drawn from the statement of A3/DW-1 to show that a room was provided to the persons from DPE office for doing the official work which was supposed to be done CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NEW DELHI vs. MIRA EXIM LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

House 38. It is argued that the prosecution has tried to suggest that since the nature of work was confidential, therefore, an inference is drawn from the statement of A3/DW-1 to show that a room was provided to the persons from DPE office for doing the official work which was supposed to be done CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page

CIT VI vs. VERIZON INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

House 38. It is argued that the prosecution has tried to suggest that since the nature of work was confidential, therefore, an inference is drawn from the statement of A3/DW-1 to show that a room was provided to the persons from DPE office for doing the official work which was supposed to be done CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page