REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

viia) (c), it was\nsubmitted that as held in the assessee's own case, the coordinate bench had\ndecided in favour of the assessee that the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) and\n36(1)(via) are interdependent on each other.\n6.4 After considering the above submissions of the assessee, the AO rejected\nthe submission of the assessee and proceeded

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

viia) (c), it was\nsubmitted that as held in the assessee's own case, the coordinate bench had\ndecided in favour of the assessee that the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) and\n36(1)(via) are interdependent on each other.\n6.4 After considering the above submissions of the assessee, the AO rejected\nthe submission of the assessee and proceeded

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , CR BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

viia) (c), it was\nsubmitted that as held in the assessee's own case, the coordinate bench had\ndecided in favour of the assessee that the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) and\n36(1)(via) are interdependent on each other.\n6.4 After considering the above submissions of the assessee, the AO rejected\nthe submission of the assessee and proceeded

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD., KASTURBA NAGAR

viia) (c), it was\nsubmitted that as held in the assessee's own case, the coordinate bench had\ndecided in favour of the assessee that the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) and\n36(1)(via) are interdependent on each other.\n6.4 After considering the above submissions of the assessee, the AO rejected\nthe submission of the assessee and proceeded

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

36 shall not be taken into account." Through Finance Act, 1968, sub-clause (iii) to Section 40 (c) was deleted; instead, sub-clause (v) was introduced to Section 40 (a). That, as introduced by the said Finance Act, read as follows: 2013:DHC:3744-DB ITA 441/2003 and connected cases Page 20 "40. Amounts not deductible.-Notwithstanding anything

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

36 shall not be taken into account." Through Finance Act, 1968, sub-clause (iii) to Section 40 (c) was deleted; instead, sub-clause (v) was introduced to Section 40 (a). That, as introduced by the said Finance Act, read as follows: 2013:DHC:3744-DB ITA 441/2003 and connected cases Page 20 "40. Amounts not deductible.-Notwithstanding anything

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

36 shall not be taken into account." Through Finance Act, 1968, sub-clause (iii) to Section 40 (c) was deleted; instead, sub-clause (v) was introduced to Section 40 (a). That, as introduced by the said Finance Act, read as follows: 2013:DHC:3744-DB ITA 441/2003 and connected cases Page 20 "40. Amounts not deductible.-Notwithstanding anything

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

Housing and finance Pvt ltd. 4,97,500 10 4975000 Senator developers Pvt. Ltd. 2,54,130 10 2541300 6 7 Sara estates Pvt. Ltd. 4,62,335 10 4623350 Ambience highway developers Pvt. 6,25,000 10 6250000 8 Ltd. 9 Ambience towers Pvt Ltd 2,21,368 12.21 2702903.28 Ambience homes

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 148, the reassessment had been initiated without any basis and information and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, as noted above, no new documents were discovered by the survey proceedings in January 2014 - all of the documents in question had been in the hands of the government in 2006. The reason that

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

VIIA – basis of POCM Working for 8 VIID projects Page 4 of 144 16. TOR – 15 & 20 Reclassification of Income 321 326 8,15,68,758 Volume – VIII from House property Reconciliation of rental 326 329 4,49,85,573 income with TDS Certificate Notional Income from House 330 346 3,27,52,542 properties 17. TOR – 20 Compensation paid

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

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

VIIA – basis of POCM Working for 8 VIID projects Page 4 of 144 16. TOR – 15 & 20 Reclassification of Income 321 326 8,15,68,758 Volume – VIII from House property Reconciliation of rental 326 329 4,49,85,573 income with TDS Certificate Notional Income from House 330 346 3,27,52,542 properties 17. TOR – 20 Compensation paid

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

36,25,157/-. As per the computation of capital gain mechanism on the date of transfer, the capital gains will be determined based on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed executed and the law prescribes claim of deduction of expenditure incurred on such transfer, indexation cost of acquisition and improvement. Therefore, there is no mechanism to determine

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

36,25,157/-. As per the computation of capital gain mechanism on the date of transfer, the capital gains will be determined based on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed executed and the law prescribes claim of deduction of expenditure incurred on such transfer, indexation cost of acquisition and improvement. Therefore, there is no mechanism to determine

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

viia) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xvi) any consideration received for issue of shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares referred to in clause (viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xvii) any sum of money referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviia) any sum of money

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

viia) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xvi) any consideration received for issue of shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares referred to in clause (viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xvii) any sum of money referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviia) any sum of money

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

property, whether it is for stamp duty or registration charges, it will be an addition to the asset when actually incurred. The stamp duty and registration charges are levied according to the rates prevalent at time of registration, and when that event will happen is not certain in the case of the assessee and thus claiming depreciation on the basis

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

property, whether it is for stamp duty or registration charges, it will be an addition to the asset when actually incurred. The stamp duty and registration charges are levied according to the rates prevalent at time of registration, and when that event will happen is not certain in the case of the assessee and thus claiming depreciation on the basis

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

property, whether it is for stamp duty or registration charges, it will be an addition to the asset when actually incurred. The stamp duty and registration charges are levied according to the rates prevalent at time of registration, and when that event will happen is not certain in the case of the assessee and thus claiming depreciation on the basis