MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

house property. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for Ay 2014-15 and similar grounds are also for AY 2015-16:- ITA. No. 8229/Del/2018 (Assessment year: 2014-15) : “1. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing- 2(2)(2) („Ld. TPO‟), draft assessment order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7 vs. M/S QNS FACILITY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.

Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed along with the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) [now Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”] has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order dated 27th February, 2018 passed by the learned ASJ – 02 (FTC), New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter

The Commissioner of Income Tax II

Appeal is dismissed

Section 54. 11. What has been stated in the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 1997, in practical terms and in reality still holds good. This is a matter of common knowledge that flats or apartments being constructed by builders take time. The Government Housing Boards also take time and seldom adhere to the promised date. Similar view

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property, business income and interest income. Assessee did not maintain any books of account. AIR information was received showing that the assessee has deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 66,41,000/- in his two bank accounts with Bank of India and Syndicate Bank during the financial year. Therefore, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The assessee

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,NEW DELHI vs. MONNET ISPAT & ENERGY LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

397 read with sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 12.07.2017 passed by learned CMM, Patiala House Courts, Delhi. 2. Facts of the case as stated in the present petition are that petitioner company is a private limited company incorporated as such under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. Present petition

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RAJESH ARORA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

house properties. The brief facts relating to ground Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the deletion of addition of Rs. 2.98 crores u/s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961, are that the assessee has taken loan from Kavaset Exports of Rs.1.40 crores, Kiran Kapoor Rs.5 lacs, Pravir Arora Rs.3 lacs and Sunil Kumar & Sanjay Kr. Rs.1.50 crores, totaling to Rs.2

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

397 is part of the cost of acquisition and is thus also eligible for exemption under Section 54. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking, cryptic order ignoring detailed documentary evidence submitted and failed to discharge the appellate responsibility of examining and adjudicating disputed facts objectively. P a g e | 4 Azizul Ghani

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

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

House 330 346 3,27,52,542 properties 17. TOR – 20 Compensation paid to Shriram 346 353 1,16,99,500 Volume – VIII School Withdrawal of 30% deduction 35,09,850 u/s 24 18. TOR – 30 Expenditure on account of 353 354 14,49,123 Volume – IX Provision for gratuity u/s 43B 19. TOR – 29 Disallowance u/s 14A read

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

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

House 330 346 3,27,52,542 properties 17. TOR – 20 Compensation paid to Shriram 346 353 1,16,99,500 Volume – VIII School Withdrawal of 30% deduction 35,09,850 u/s 24 18. TOR – 30 Expenditure on account of 353 354 14,49,123 Volume – IX Provision for gratuity u/s 43B 19. TOR – 29 Disallowance u/s 14A read

M/S AMANSHIL REALTORS (P) LTD.,,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

397/- was shown as on the 1st day of the year and long-term loans and advances given amounting to Rs. 3,13,81,947/-and Rs. 3, 12,60,638/-were shown as on 1st and last day of the year respectively. Short-term loans and advances amounting to Rs.1,40,04,383/-and Rs.58

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

MANJULA FINANCE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manjula Finance Ltd, Vs. Ito, 28, Najafgarh Road, Ward-16(2), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacm6990N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section cannot be applied. 8. He further submitted a short gist of various judicial precedents relied up on :- i. The assessee was the absolute owner of the gifted shares and had full enjoyment rights including for alienation, discard and even demolish, unless prohibited by some statute or legal restraints / injections. [Podar Cement Case laws Paper Book CLPB 29, Mysore Minerals

SANJAY JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Jain, Vs. Acit, Chamber No. 488, Circle 37(1), Delhi High Court Block-Ii. New Delhi. Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aagpj8607A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ra Bansal & Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Department By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,70,574/- Made By The Assessing Officer To The Long Term Capital Gain Declared By The Assessee At Rs.1,47,823/-. Since The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Is Contrary To Law & Therefore, Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Ignoring The Cost Of Improvement While Calculating Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee On Transfer Of Property.

House (F-115, Sec. 41, Noida) 63,00,000 Less: Cost of acquisition 2003-04 (3283200x632/463) (44,81,603) LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN 18,18,397 20% tax on LTCG 3,36,689 7.4 The Assessing Officer thus made addition of Rs.16,70,574 to the long term capital gain as the assessee had already declared Rs.1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA vs. PGP CHARITABLE TRUST, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh

house property Q3 Please explain whether you are Director in company. Partner in any firm or you have Any association with invel of eve A I am not Director in any company or have no interest in partnership firm. To the best of my knowledge I am a trustee in one trust namely, POP Charitable Trust. In this respect have

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA vs. PGP CHARITABLE TRUST, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh

house property Q3 Please explain whether you are Director in company. Partner in any firm or you have Any association with invel of eve A I am not Director in any company or have no interest in partnership firm. To the best of my knowledge I am a trustee in one trust namely, POP Charitable Trust. In this respect have

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

BRAHAM PRAKASH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2011-12

397 ITR 240 7 Braham Prakash Vs. ITO also eld that section 54B of the Act nowhere suggests the legislature intended to advance the benefit of the said section to an assessee who purchases agricultural land even in the name of a third person. The term assessee is qualified by the expression " purchased any other land for being used

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

property is a premia or salami which is capital in nature. 5. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case that that the assessee company was engaged in the business of software development and services. For the year