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

42 ITR 49 (SC) Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [corresponding to section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] Income from house property

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

42 ITR 49 (SC) Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [corresponding to section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] Income from house property

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

42 ITR 49 (SC) Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [corresponding to section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] Income from house property

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

42 ITR 49 (SC) Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [corresponding to section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] Income from house property

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

section 57(ii) of the Act. His reliance on Jay Metal Industries (P) Ltd. vs. CIT: 396 ITR 194 (Del), Oriental Building & Furnishing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT: 53 ITD 198 (Del Trib.), Serendipity Apparels (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO: 78 Taxmann. Com 154 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), is appropriate. 13.5 It may be noted that leased building may be a - (1) building simpliciter

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

42 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”, for short) against more or less similar orders of the appellate tribunal (constituted under Section 25), such orders having been rendered on appeals of the respondents (“banks”) vis-à-vis the orders of provisional attachment issued by the enforcement officers under Section 5, as confirmed by the adjudicating authority under

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

42 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”, for short) against more or less similar orders of the appellate tribunal (constituted under Section 25), such orders having been rendered on appeals of the respondents (“banks”) vis-à-vis the orders of provisional attachment issued by the enforcement officers under Section 5, as confirmed by the adjudicating authority under

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. Accordingly, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the sums aggregating to Rs.18,19,71,202/- is directed to be deleted. 18. So far as the other judgments, which have been referred by the ld. CIT (A) in the impugned order as well as by the ld. D.R., we are not venturing into distinguishing the same, because

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2 vs. M/S BOSE CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. L TO.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

property before the empowered officer, in compliance with Sections 52 and 55 of the NDPS Act also stood proved by PW-1 M.K. Gupta, who also made an entry, in this effect, in the Malkhana register (Ex. PW-1/F). CRL.A. 462/2016 Page 4 of 57 (ii) PW-4 Inspector S.K. Sachdev had proved the submission of the report, under

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".” 20. The above section unambiguously provides that properties used for the purpose of business are outside the ambit of section 22. In the case in hand, the property on account of which addition has been made considering the deemed annual value is the registered office of the company in accordance under section 12 of the Companies

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF ASSETS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

42 ITR 49 (SC) Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [corresponding to section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Income from house property

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF ASSETS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

42 ITR 49 (SC) Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [corresponding to section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Income from house property

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF ASSETS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

42 ITR 49 (SC) Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [corresponding to section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Income from house property

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. 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

42,675/- (out of Rs.6,93,49,975/-) under the head ‘income from house property’ without appreciating that S.23 of the Income Tax Act 1961 has undergone amendment vide Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002 and old law cannot be applied to the year under consideration. 1.3 Without prejudice to the above ground no.1.1, learned CIT(A) erred

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

42,675/- (out of Rs.6,93,49,975/-) under the head ‘income from house property’ without appreciating that S.23 of the Income Tax Act 1961 has undergone amendment vide Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002 and old law cannot be applied to the year under consideration. 1.3 Without prejudice to the above ground no.1.1, learned CIT(A) erred

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

42,675/- (out of Rs.6,93,49,975/-) under the head ‘income from house property’ without appreciating that S.23 of the Income Tax Act 1961 has undergone amendment vide Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002 and old law cannot be applied to the year under consideration. 1.3 Without prejudice to the above ground no.1.1, learned CIT(A) erred

MRS. SAMKIKSHA MAHAJAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm Ita No. 3117/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Mrs. Samiksha Mahajan, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2, Avenue Cassia, Westend Tax, Central Circle-22, Greens, Rajokari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akdpm4000H Ita No. 3118/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Mrs. Anita Rani, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2, Avenue Cassia, Westend Tax, Central Circle-22, Greens, Rajokari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepr2569P Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sambhav Rastogi Revenue By : Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2016

section 24(b) are not applicable if the loan funds are used in purchasing the land and such funds are not used for construction of the property on that land. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as facts of the case in rejecting the claim of the interest on house loan of Rs.1,42