M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

House Property. OTHER GROUNDS RETAINED. 2.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in disallowing the entire expenditure of Rs. 9,46,22,358/- u/s 37(1) as capital nature on the ground that the same related to issue of equity shares of the company to selected Qualified Institutional Buyers

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

property for which rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- was in fact used as a guest house for the company during the year under consideration and the addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). As the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars regarding the same, penalty w/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this addition has been imposed

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

property for which rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- was in fact used as a guest house for the company during the year under consideration and the addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). As the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars regarding the same, penalty w/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this addition has been imposed

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

property for which rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- was in fact used as a guest house for the company during the year under consideration and the addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). As the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars regarding the same, penalty w/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this addition has been imposed

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

property for which rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- was in fact used as a guest house for the company during the year under consideration and the addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). As the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars regarding the same, penalty w/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this addition has been imposed

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

property for which rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- was in fact used as a guest house for the company during the year under consideration and the addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). As the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars regarding the same, penalty w/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this addition has been imposed

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

property for which rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- was in fact used as a guest house for the company during the year under consideration and the addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). As the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars regarding the same, penalty w/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this addition has been imposed

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

property for which rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- was in fact used as a guest house for the company during the year under consideration and the addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). As the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars regarding the same, penalty w/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this addition has been imposed

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

property for which rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- was in fact used as a guest house for the company during the year under consideration and the addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). As the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars regarding the same, penalty w/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this addition has been imposed

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

house and accordingly claimed an exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished a copy of agreement dated 29.07.2016 to substantiate that he had entered into a contract of purchase/construction of the property. The AO rejected assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act, as the new asset had never come

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property amounting to Rs 22,33,67,403/-. 11. Whether the Ld. NFAC under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,17,34,000/- made by the A0 on account of disallowance of expenses of Helicopter and Aircraft which were not related to business of assessee

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property amounting to Rs 22,33,67,403/-. 11. Whether the Ld. NFAC under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,17,34,000/- made by the A0 on account of disallowance of expenses of Helicopter and Aircraft which were not related to business of assessee

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property amounting to Rs 22,33,67,403/-. 11. Whether the Ld. NFAC under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,17,34,000/- made by the A0 on account of disallowance of expenses of Helicopter and Aircraft which were not related to business of assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property amounting to Rs 22,33,67,403/-. 11. Whether the Ld. NFAC under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,17,34,000/- made by the A0 on account of disallowance of expenses of Helicopter and Aircraft which were not related to business of assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property amounting to Rs 22,33,67,403/-. 11. Whether the Ld. NFAC under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,17,34,000/- made by the A0 on account of disallowance of expenses of Helicopter and Aircraft which were not related to business of assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THAPAR HOMES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is\nallowed

house at Sultan\nPur. Therefore, it is clear that the sum of Rs.13,00,000/- is not a fee but is a receipt\nfor construction expenses. As the assessee has not declared any cost related expenses\nthe sum of Rs.13,00,000/- is treated as income from unexplained sources u/s 68 of\nthe Act and a sum of Rs.13

THAPAR HOMES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is\nallowed

house at Sultan\nPur. Therefore, it is clear that the sum of Rs.13,00,000/- is not a fee but is a receipt\nfor construction expenses. As the assessee has not declared any cost related expenses\nthe sum of Rs.13,00,000/- is treated as income from unexplained sources u/s 68 of\nThapar Homes Ltd. Group

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. WESTCOURT HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Acit, Circle 25(1), Room Vs M/S. Westcourt Hospitality No. 192A, Cr Building, Pvt. Ltd. Ip Estate New-Delhi. 4391, B-5 & 6, Vasant Kunj, 110002 New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacw8734G Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2018-19] M/S. Westcourt Hospitality Vs Acit, Circle 25(1),Room Pvt. Ltd. No. 192A, Cr Building, Ip 4391, B-5 & 6, Vasant Estate New-Delhi. 110002 Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacw8734G Appellant Respondent

35D of the Act are to applicable to the facts of the present case. The hon’ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Havels India Ltd. (supra) under identical circumstances has held the expenses on the issue of debentures as revenue expenditure by making following observations: “It is well settled that expenditure incurred in connection with the issue