INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

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

house property’. 29. As regards the expenditure towards salaries and other benefits to its employees, postage and telegrams, travelling, rent and taxes, water and ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 17 of 71 electricity, printing and stationery etc. in the sum of Rs.1,45,98,768.16, the AO allowed the entire expenditure of Rs. 37,58,036 on the employees

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

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

house property’. 29. As regards the expenditure towards salaries and other benefits to its employees, postage and telegrams, travelling, rent and taxes, water and ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 17 of 71 electricity, printing and stationery etc. in the sum of Rs.1,45,98,768.16, the AO allowed the entire expenditure of Rs. 37,58,036 on the employees

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

house property’. 29. As regards the expenditure towards salaries and other benefits to its employees, postage and telegrams, travelling, rent and taxes, water and 2016:DHC:2463-DB ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 17 of 71 electricity, printing and stationery etc. in the sum of Rs.1,45,98,768.16, the AO allowed the entire expenditure

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SEEMA SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

2. ... During the assessment proceedings the AO also noticed that the assessee has entered into an ‘Apartment Buyer Agreement' with M/s Standard Ltd. on 27/08/2010. In this regard on consideration of facts and submission of the assessee, the AO was of the view that the impugned acquisition on new property by the assessee through ‘Apartment Buyer Agreement’, amounted to “purchase

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property if commenced before the date of the sale of the original asset whether the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54F of the income tax act or not. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Bharti Mishra (2014) 41 Taxmann.com 50 (Delhi)/[2014] 222 Taxman 2 (Delhi)/[2014] 265 CTR 374 (Delhi) has examined

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

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

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

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

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

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

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

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

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

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

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

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

NEW DELHI HOTELS LTD vs. ACIT

The appeals stand dismissed

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

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

CIT vs. NIRMAL BANSAL

The appeals stand dismissed

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

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

CIT vs. MANJU BANSAL

The appeals stand dismissed

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

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

houses or independent floors with covered areas larger than the covered area of the property at 25 Kautilya Marg, and either furnished or semi furnished. In other words the comparison was with like to unlike. 5. That the AO had failed to appreciate or chose to ignore the factual submission, that one of the trustees namely Mr. Hammad Ahmed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

2. ... During the assessment proceedings the AO also noticed that the assessee has entered into an ‘Apartment Buyer Agreement' with M/s Standard Ltd. on 27/08/2010. In this regard on consideration of facts and submission of the assessee, the AO was of the view that the impugned acquisition on new property by the assessee through ‘Apartment Buyer Agreement’, amounted to “purchase

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

2. ... During the assessment proceedings the AO also noticed that the assessee has entered into an ‘Apartment Buyer Agreement' with M/s Standard Ltd. on 27/08/2010. In this regard on consideration of facts and submission of the assessee, the AO was of the view that the impugned acquisition on new property by the assessee through ‘Apartment Buyer Agreement’, amounted to “purchase

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