DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

house property' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM vs. DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD., GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

house property' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

house property' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

house property' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

house property' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. GALGOTIA BOOKS & DEPARTMENT STORE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

property in question) and the enforcement authority (the State). Since the second of the above species of "proceeds of crime" uses the expression "such property", the qualifying word being "such", it is vivid that the "property" referred to here is equivalent to the one indicated by the first kind. The only difference is that it is not the same property

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. SALDI CHITS PVT. LTD.,

The appeals are allowed

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

property in question) and the enforcement authority (the State). Since the second of the above species of "proceeds of crime" uses the expression "such property", the qualifying word being "such", it is vivid that the "property" referred to here is equivalent to the one indicated by the first kind. The only difference is that it is not the same property

ARYA SMAJ MODEL TOWN,DELHI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -3, NEW DELHI

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

housing the college, hostel and to\nprovide other facilities to the students who are studying in the College.\nThe College is recognized by the Medical Council of India, State of\nKarnataka and all other statutory authorities. Therefore, it cannot be\nsaid that the Trust is not genuine. Admittedly, the students are being\nadmitted every year. Students are studying

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

house property and not business income or income from other sources. The Assessing Officer granted standard deduction of 30% as per Section 24 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further disallowed certain expenses claimed by the assessee in return of income. 4

M/S PARNIKA COMMERCIAL & ESTATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project; (c) a water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid waste management system; (d) a port, airport, inland waterway [, inland port or navigational channel in the sea]; (ii) any undertaking which has started or starts providing telecommunication services, whether basic or cellular

PAVEL GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 63(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3606/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Pavel Garg, Vs Acit, Dtj-120, 1St Floor, Jasola Tower-B, Circle-63(1), Jasola, New Delhi-110025 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpg2923R Assessee By : Sh. S.B. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2022

4) of section 23 which provides that where an assessee owns more than one house property in occupation used for the purpose

SELECT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

house property” under section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act”). 1.3 That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) officer erred on facts and in law in consequentially upholding I.T.A. No.3751, 3775&3752/D/2013 & ,5401,5402&5241/D/2014 4

MRS. RASHMI DHARIWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 11 and 12 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirashmi Dhariwal, Vs. Acit, Aashray Farms, Sub Po, Circle-23(1), Sawan Public School, Bhatti New Delhi Mines, Asola Village, New Delhi Pan:Aappd9702P (Appellant) (Respondent)

4 829 1907/– being the amount given by the tenant directly to the persons or entities who worked for the renovation of the house property. The said sum of Rs. 5 191380/– was taken as an annual letting Value of the house property and there from a sum of Rs. 1 557414/– was deducted as standard rate of 30% under

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

house property and interest. For AY 2012-13, she e-filed her return declaring income of Rs. 1,37,420/- on 25.10.2013 belatedly as against due date of 31.07.2012. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Initially statutory notices issued

BSC C&C JV,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.705/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Bsc C&C Jv Assessing Officer, 74, Hemkunt Colony, Vs. National E-Assessment New Delhi. Centre, Delhi. Pan No. Aadfb8115G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

4)(i), Infrastructure Facility includes a road including toll road, a bridge or a rail system; a highway project including housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project; a water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid waste management system; a port, airport, inland waterway, inland port or navigational channel

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. AGGARWAL PLASTO CHEM PVT.LTD.

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

4 of 61 basis through three HSS Agreements with M.K. International Ltd10, a sister concern of MKAIL, without charging any cost, (ii) vide MOU dated 30 November 2024 between NAFED, through Homi Rajvansh, and MIL, raw sugar was sold by NAFED to MIL under three separate HSS Agreements, which was subsequently sold by MIL in the open market

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OMAXE BUILDHOME (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu Assessment Year : 2008-09 Deputy Cit, Vs. M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Central Circle-4, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, New Delhi. Kalkaji, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Vs. Deputy Cit, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, Central Circle-4, Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Properties in ITA Nos. 3633/2009 and 4361/2010, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed as under: “…..Moreover plain reading of Section 80IB(10) does not even remotely suggest that the plot of land having minimum area of one acre must be vacant. The said section allows deduction to a housing project (subject to fulfilling all other conditions ) constructed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“I.T. Act”, for short) on 28.12.2011 in which total income was determined at Rs. 2,16,95,055/- as against the returned income of Rs. Page 4 of 39 ITA No.- 4373/Del/2012. Ramit Vohra. 36,20,086/-; as per following computation: S.No Description Amount 1. INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY

RAJEEV VASUDEVA,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1) , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: us, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

section 54F of the Act does not stand fulfilled in the instant case. Further, it was submitted that the assessee was only 50% owner 4 | P a g e of the said property and hence cannot be construed as absolute owner of the property. Consequentially, he cannot be held to be owning any house