DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section Order 1 2. ITA No.5332/Del/2025 C.O.No.221/Del/2025 2016-17 -do- 13.06.2025 -do- 26.12.2018 -do- 143(3) of the IT Act 3. ITA No.5333/Del/2025 2017-18 13.06.2025 27.12.2019 143(3) 4. C.O. No.222/Del/2025 -do- -do- -do- -do- 3. ITA No.5334/Del/2025 2018-19 13.06.2025 29.03.2021 143(3A) and 143(3B) 4. C.O. No.223/Del/2025 -do- -do- -do- - do - 3. At the beginning

ASHOK KUMAR SHAHI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y.: 2014-15

46A, Nerul (Seawoods), Navi Mumbai-400706, vide sale deed executed on 01.11.2013. Assessee’s share in total sale consideration, was Rs. 80,00,000/- (50% of Rs. 1,60,00,000). Assessee has purchased the same property; vide purchase deed executed on 13.10.2006. AR of the assesse has furnished the working of Long Term Capital Gain on the sale

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. ASHOK KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6105/Del/2017: Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Ashok Kumar, Central Circle-26, 13, Ashoka Avenue, Dlf Farms, New Delhi-110055 Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepc1877D

46A on 02.12.2016 submitting as under: "6. A sum of Rs.13,57,069 has been disallowed being standard deduction of repairs u/s 24(a) of the Act, on the property sub- letted situated at G 4 NDSE, Delhi by the assessee. 8 Ashok Kumar This property is owned by the assessee for more than 12 years and as per section

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 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Because of the failure on the part of assessee, complete details regarding actual rent received/receivable is not available, from the above residential property, hence, I reasonably estimate the annual rent to be Rs. 3,60,000/- per annum i.e. Rs. 30,000/- per month keeping in view the fact that the property

ITO, WARD-16(3), NEW DELHI vs. MAUVE STAR DEVELOPERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraincome Tax Officer Vs. Mauve Star Developers Ward 16(3) Private Limited Room No. 304, U-7, Ground Floor, C.R. Building, Green Park Extn. New Delhi - 110002 New Delhi – 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcm2402N Appellant .. Respondent

house property under the provisions of section 22 to 27 of the Act. Hence, in our view the depreciation cannot be allowed. 10. Coming to this issue of maintenance and repair expenses, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled for claim of deduction of 30% of rent and, accordingly, the Assessing Officer will allow standard deduction

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

section 22 of the Act. However, the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition without giving specific finding regarding the properties being vacant farm land and there was no construction of house property by the assessee. Therefore, the issue of taxability of properties claimed as being vacant farm lands needs verification by the AO for ascertaining the correctness

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

Appeal is allowed and order of the High Court is set aside

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section Order 1 2. ITA No.5332/Del/2025 C.O.No.221/Del/2025 2016-17 -do- 13.06.2025 -do- 26.12.2018 -do- 143(3) of the IT Act 3. ITA No.5333/Del/2025 2017-18 13.06.2025 27.12.2019 143(3) 4. C.O. No.222/Del/2025 -do- -do- -do- -do- 3. ITA No.5334/Del/2025 2018-19 13.06.2025 29.03.2021 143(3A) and 143(3B) 4. C.O. No. 223/Del/2025

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

house property, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83. Mr Singh is right

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, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83. Mr Singh is right

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, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83. Mr Singh is right

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –V vs. KAPIL NAGPAL

Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Additional evidence before the CIT (A) 9. The Assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and sought to rely upon the following additional evidence in support of his contentions: “(a) The copy of the sale deed dated 13th March 1996 in favour of the Appellant to prove the fact that

SANJAY SHARMA,GREATER NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sanjay Sharma, Vs Acit, Flat 4063, Ats Paradiso, Noida. Sec-Chi-04, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308. Pan-Amkps9185L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 23.12.2021. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Ground Of Appeal:- 1. “In The Instant Case The Appellant Assessee While Submitting The Income Tax Return For The Financial Year Ended On 31-03-2012 (Relevant To The Asst. Year 2012-13) Inadvertently Forgotten To Submit The Details For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Did Not Mentioned The Details Of Sale Of Residential House Property & Utilization Of Long-Term Capital Gain Arising Out Of Sale Of Residential House Property In The Purchase Of Another/New Residential House Property. Consequently, Income Demand Of Rs. 5,61,107/- Was Raised Against The Appellant Assessee Followed By The Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

House Property at Flat 4063. ATS Paradiso, CHI-04, Greater Noida. Hence, amount of Long Term Capital gain is fully exempt u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (Kindly refer Page no.27 To 46) The Grounds of Appeal furnished herewith (Kindly refer Page no.57 to Page no.58) are in itself self-explanatory and the same may kindly be reviewed

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

house, 7 then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place……” 3. The Assessing Officer, the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 on the ground that he did not become

JYOTI JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ground no. 5 of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.4983/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Jyoti Jain, 25/94, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi 110007 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan No: Adipj-0775-G बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(2), New Delhi

46A of the Act and furnish additional evidences pertaining to investment of Rs.1,51,74,950/- towards construction of house no. 5/21, Roop Nagar, Delhi. The CIT(A) has not given any finding on the said issue. 4 ITA No. 4983 /DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) 3. Per contra, Shri Om Prakash representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order

ANJU CHAWLA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 alongwith survey operations u/s 133 A of the Income Tax Act 1961 were undertaken at various residential and business premises of Aseem kumar Gupta & Group and other beneficiary group of cases on 26.03.2010. Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta

ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAHUL NATH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

46A as appellant was unable to produce the same before the AO due to premises was locked by the landlord due to non payment of rent for a long time. The appellant fulfills the conditions as stipulated under Section 54F as appellant is an individual and capital gain claimed for exemption has arisen from transfer of long term capital asset

RAHUL NATH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

46A as appellant was unable to produce the same before the AO due to premises was locked by the landlord due to non payment of rent for a long time. The appellant fulfills the conditions as stipulated under Section 54F as appellant is an individual and capital gain claimed for exemption has arisen from transfer of long term capital asset

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. MS. DOLLY NANDA, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Dolly Nanda, Ward-22(2), H-10, Maharni Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaapn0833C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54F of the income tax act has been made in a residential house amounting to Rs. 53 lakhs at New Delhi and assessee is a 50% joint honour in the said property. The assessee submitted the copies of the purchase deed and the copy of the bank statement. Before him, assessee also filed additional evidences along with the application