DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

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

364/-of interest on interest free loan advanced to sister concerns (ground No. 6 to 6.2); v) Addition of Rs. 3,92,03,610/- on account of treatment of income from house property as business income (ground 7 to 7.2); vi) Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 5,27,339/- being expenditure (8 to 8.1); vii) Ground

M/S. UNITECH LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

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

364/-of interest on interest free loan advanced to sister concerns (ground No. 6 to 6.2); v) Addition of Rs. 3,92,03,610/- on account of treatment of income from house property as business income (ground 7 to 7.2); vi) Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 5,27,339/- being expenditure (8 to 8.1); vii) Ground

UNIVERSAL PRECISION SCREWS,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singhi.T.A. No.1454/Del/2015 (Assessment Years 2010-11)

section 24(b) talks of allowing deduction for the interest payable by the assessee where property has been acquired, constructed, 9 repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital. The assessee has admittedly shown some income from let out property under the head 'Income from house property.' Once some term loan has been taken for acquiring or constructing, etc., the property

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

House, Community New Delhi. Center, Saket, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACU1482H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 09 02 2023 Date of pronouncement: 15 02 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner

M/S. UNITECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed and the 2 appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri K. Narsimha Chary

properties held by the wholly owned subsidiary company. Learned Assessing Officer relied upon the ITA.Nos.1905, 1906 &1907/Del/2017 and 6437 & 4781/Del/2017 assessment orders relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 to reach a conclusion that the transactions of sale of shares were in fact in accordance with the ordinary lines of business as defined in MOU and Articles

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed and the 2 appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri K. Narsimha Chary

properties held by the wholly owned subsidiary company. Learned Assessing Officer relied upon the ITA.Nos.1905, 1906 &1907/Del/2017 and 6437 & 4781/Del/2017 assessment orders relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 to reach a conclusion that the transactions of sale of shares were in fact in accordance with the ordinary lines of business as defined in MOU and Articles

M/S. UNITECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed and the 2 appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri K. Narsimha Chary

properties held by the wholly owned subsidiary company. Learned Assessing Officer relied upon the ITA.Nos.1905, 1906 &1907/Del/2017 and 6437 & 4781/Del/2017 assessment orders relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 to reach a conclusion that the transactions of sale of shares were in fact in accordance with the ordinary lines of business as defined in MOU and Articles

M/S. UNITECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed and the 2 appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri K. Narsimha Chary

properties held by the wholly owned subsidiary company. Learned Assessing Officer relied upon the ITA.Nos.1905, 1906 &1907/Del/2017 and 6437 & 4781/Del/2017 assessment orders relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 to reach a conclusion that the transactions of sale of shares were in fact in accordance with the ordinary lines of business as defined in MOU and Articles

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed and the 2 appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri K. Narsimha Chary

properties held by the wholly owned subsidiary company. Learned Assessing Officer relied upon the ITA.Nos.1905, 1906 &1907/Del/2017 and 6437 & 4781/Del/2017 assessment orders relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 to reach a conclusion that the transactions of sale of shares were in fact in accordance with the ordinary lines of business as defined in MOU and Articles

M/S. VOITH PAPER GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

property in the goods thereupon passes to the buyer. Such assent may be expressed or implied, and may be given either before or after the appropriation is made. (2) Delivery to carrier-Where, in pursuance of the contract, the seller delivers the goods to the buyer or to a carrier or other bailee (whether named by the buyer

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

property, from which income was generated was the trust property; the sale deed in favour of the assessee showed that he purchased the property as a trustee and there was a subsequent deed creating a trust which recorded a corpus of Rs. 2 lakhs left in the hands of the assessee. In this case it was held that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VIPUL LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivipul Ltd, Vs. Acit, Regus Rectangle, Level-4, Range-7, Rectangle-1, D-4, Commercial New Delhi Complex, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca5396C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Vipul Ltd, Circle-26(2), Regus Rectangle, Level-4, New Delhi Rectangle-1, D-4, Commercial Complex, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca5396C (Appellant) (Respondent)

364. Accordingly, the disallowance was upheld. 6. The learned authorised representative submitted that assessee has not earned any exempt income and therefore disallowance u/s 14 A cannot be made. 7. The learned departmental representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Undisputedly during

M/S INDIAN FARMERS FERTILISER COOPERATIVE LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. PR CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

House Property as these communication towers cannot be called as buildings or lands appurtenant thereto. 5. Your case is fixed for hearing on 04.01.2016 at 3:30 pm, as already intimated in show cause notice u/s. 263 dated 22.12.2015.” 9. In response to the above Show Cause Notice, the Assessee file a detailed reply dated 11th January 2016 as well

NINA LUTHRA,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), NOIDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Nina Luthra, F No 20, Sector-37, Vs. Ito, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Ward-1(2), Pan: Actpl6023F Noida (Appellant) (Respondent)

properties. He further questioned the amount of investment made by the assessee with the builder found that assessee has made investment on 15.03.2011 of Rs. 1 lakh in cash . The source of this sum was questioned. The assessee submitted that the assessee and her husband has kept withdrawal at home and source of Rs. 1 lakh is withdrwal from Punjab

MR. ABHISAR SHARMA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

house property Rs.81,609/- Total Rs.2,02,919/- 3. Subsequently, on 24.07.2013 the CIT-16, Delhi, called for a report from the AO regarding errors in assessment of the assessee and his wife Smt. Shumana Sen. An order u/s 127 of the Act was passed by the ld.CIT-16 on 27.08.2013 transferring the jurisdiction over the assessee’s case from