DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

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'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

40 of 105 person “entitled to claim” any interest in the property (“person interested”) or to enjoyment of an immovable property (for example a lessee) from such enjoyment, the possibility of taking over the possession of such property or for it to be treated as “frozen” [Section 17 (1A)] arising only upon confirmation by the adjudicating authority under section

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

40 of 105 person “entitled to claim” any interest in the property (“person interested”) or to enjoyment of an immovable property (for example a lessee) from such enjoyment, the possibility of taking over the possession of such property or for it to be treated as “frozen” [Section 17 (1A)] arising only upon confirmation by the adjudicating authority under section

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

40 (c) (v). The revenue‘s appeals on this aspect have to fail. Point No. 2. Social security, pension and medical insurance contributions 26. This issue arises for consideration in ITA Nos. 441/2003; 761/2005; 798/2005; 800/2005; 379/2007; 1215/2008; 450/2010; 680/2007; 681/2007; 577/2010; 528/2011 and 370/2011 . 27. The revenue is in appeal on this score. In all the cases, the foreign

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

40 (c) (v). The revenue‘s appeals on this aspect have to fail. Point No. 2. Social security, pension and medical insurance contributions 26. This issue arises for consideration in ITA Nos. 441/2003; 761/2005; 798/2005; 800/2005; 379/2007; 1215/2008; 450/2010; 680/2007; 681/2007; 577/2010; 528/2011 and 370/2011 . 27. The revenue is in appeal on this score. In all the cases, the foreign

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

40 (c) (v). The revenue‘s appeals on this aspect have to fail. Point No. 2. Social security, pension and medical insurance contributions 26. This issue arises for consideration in ITA Nos. 441/2003; 761/2005; 798/2005; 800/2005; 379/2007; 1215/2008; 450/2010; 680/2007; 681/2007; 577/2010; 528/2011 and 370/2011 . 27. The revenue is in appeal on this score. In all the cases, the foreign

M/S. IDEAL HITECH ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house property was deemed to be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. In many cases, however, the actual rent received or receivable in a year exceeds the municipal valuation of the property. Sub-section (1) of section 23 has been amended to provide that where any property is in occupation

AVAYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 466/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 202, Platina, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. Circle-1(1), C-59, G-Block, Bandra Kurla New Delhi Complex, Bandra(E), Mumabi, Maharashtra-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca3592N Assessee By : Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2021

House of Lords, Earl of Halsbury, L.C. observed as follows: 'Profit is a plain English word; that is what is charged with income-tax. But if you confound what is the necessary expenditure to earn that profit with the income-tax, which is a part of the profit itself, one can understand how you get into the conclusion which

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

40,00,000/- and earned LTCG of Rs. 1,78,53,468/- which she claimed as exempt under section 54 of 6 the Act because she purchased two properties namely property No. 345, Block-C in Greater Noida for Rs. 79,71,600/- on 25.10.2011 and property No. 32-D, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi

ASHOO DECOR INDIA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiashoo Décor India, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 1, Streel No. 1, Range-33, New Delhi Anad Parbat Indl. Area, Delhi Pan:Aaifa8801D (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property, computation of income or submissions made before him about the property at Indrapuram. II. That the assessee has not claimed any exemption under section 23(2) or 23(4) with respect to the said property. Your honor the first allegation of the AO that the assessee has nowhere mentioned about the property in Indrapuram is factually incorrect. During

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

Section 5(1) of the PMLA, provisionally attaching the subject property. Inasmuch as the facts are not in dispute, and the issue is purely one of law, detailed allusion to the contents of the Provisional Attachment Order is eschewed. Suffice it, therefore, to reproduce, for 13 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property.— Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts

M/S AT & T GLOBAL BETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2008-09] At &T Global Network Services [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle Circle - 2 (1) 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L [A.Y 2008-09] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. At &T Global Network Services Circle 2(1) [India] Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Adv Ms. Chinu Bhasin, Ca Department By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr

property for which a payment as described under para 3 of Article 12 is received (which covers payments in the nature of royalty), such payments do not pall within clause (a) of Article 12(4). Accordingly, for the aforesaid services to be taxed as FIS in India, it needs to be established that services rendered

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

house property. The said tax position was also duly accepted by the department in the preceding and succeeding year. The assessee already claimed standard deduction under Section 24(a) of the Act to the tune of Rs.57,81,40

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

House Property. SURPLUS AND SECTION 47(iv) 2.1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of the appellant's claim that the surplus of Rs. 70. 06 crores arising on transfer of its capital asset namely infrastructure assets to its wholly owned subsidiary, M/s Ansal API Infrastructure