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

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

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

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

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

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

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

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

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

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

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

482 Cr. PC praying for criminal proceedings to be quashed on account of settlement of the dispute against the backdrop of prosecution involving offences punishable under Sections 120B IPC read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Crl. Appeal No.143/2018 & others Page

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

482 Cr. PC praying for criminal proceedings to be quashed on account of settlement of the dispute against the backdrop of prosecution involving offences punishable under Sections 120B IPC read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Crl. Appeal No.143/2018 & others Page

SHIVANI MADAN vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI 01 & ANR.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

482 Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:23.01.2025 19:57:56 Signature Not Verified ITA 573/2023 & other connected matters Page 7 of 11 pay income tax on the house property under Section

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

property not mandatory for\nclaiming/classifying income under the head 'Income from house\nproperty' vide CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482 (vide\npara 2.3 to 2.3.2 of SCN).\nThat there is no error in the interpretation and application of Section

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

property not mandatory for\nclaiming/classifying income under the head 'Income from house\nproperty' vide CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482 (vide\npara 2.3 to 2.3.2 of SCN).\nThat there is no error in the interpretation and application of 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 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

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Housing Development Corpn. Vs. ACIT: [2019] 179 ITD 154 (Mum Trib.) (i) ACIT vs Jackie Shroff: [2018] 172 ITD 425 (Mumbai) 12 (j) Satyam Food Specialties (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2015] 68 SOT 449 (Jaipur - Trib.) (k) Ishvakoo Grand Plaza v. DCIT: ITA No. 4537/Del/2017 (Del. Trib) (l) Ms. Padma Rao vs. CIT: [2024] 159 taxmann.com 30 (Del Trib

M/S. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 24 of the Act. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to tax rental income under the head ‘income from house property’ as per provisions of law. Ground No. 3 is, accordingly, allowed. 17. Ground No. 4 relates to MAT credit claimed amounting to Rs. 72,30,482

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 24 of the Act. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to tax rental income under the head ‘income from house property’ as per provisions of law. Ground No. 3 is, accordingly, allowed. 17. Ground No. 4 relates to MAT credit claimed amounting to Rs. 72,30,482

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

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 has been filed by Crl.Rev.P.536/2017

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

House Property' instead of 'Income from Other Sources' completely disregarding the provisions of Section 56 of the Act and decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. a. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO and Ld. DRP erred in not allowing proportionate tax depreciation and expenses under section ('u/s') 57 of the Act amounting to Rs.19

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute, withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee is a private limited

M/S. VOITH PAPER GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

property in the goods thereupon passes to the buyer. Such assent may be expressed or implied, and may be given either before or after the appropriation is made. (2) Delivery to carrier-Where, in pursuance of the contract, the seller delivers the goods to the buyer or to a carrier or other bailee (whether named by the buyer

RADIAL INTERNATIONAL MINING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

house property is concerned, the annual letting value of any property owned by a company is required to be taxed under section 22. Where the property is shown to be used for the purpose of business, only that part of the property is not covered under section 22. In this case the assessee has not placed any material on record