DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

houses are not really the objects, but were clauses • stipulating the powers of the trustees. Having thus made a distinction between the objects and powers, the CIT (Appeals) proceeded to examine Section 11(4A) vis-à- vis Section 11(4) of the Act. He held that the amended provisions of Section 11(4A) would apply from the assessment year

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

houses are not really the objects, but were clauses • stipulating the powers of the trustees. Having thus made a distinction between the objects and powers, the CIT (Appeals) proceeded to examine Section 11(4A) vis-à- vis Section 11(4) of the Act. He held that the amended provisions of Section 11(4A) would apply from the assessment year

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

houses are not really the objects, but were clauses • stipulating the powers of the trustees. Having thus made a distinction between the objects and powers, the CIT (Appeals) proceeded to examine Section 11(4A) vis-à- vis Section 11(4) of the Act. He held that the amended provisions of Section 11(4A) would apply from the assessment year

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

houses are not really the objects, but were clauses • stipulating the powers of the trustees. Having thus made a distinction between the objects and powers, the CIT (Appeals) proceeded to examine Section 11(4A) vis-à- vis Section 11(4) of the Act. He held that the amended provisions of Section 11(4A) would apply from the assessment year

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

houses are not really the objects, but were clauses • stipulating the powers of the trustees. Having thus made a distinction between the objects and powers, the CIT (Appeals) proceeded to examine Section 11(4A) vis-à- vis Section 11(4) of the Act. He held that the amended provisions of Section 11(4A) would apply from the assessment year

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

section 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C of the Act on substantive basis. 7. An addition of the equal amount was made to the total income of TCC on protective basis. 8. Before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has challenged addition of Rs. 3.30 crores stating that no such gifts were given by the assessee to the daughter

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. YASH PAL MENDIRATTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

house of the appellant maintained by her husband wherein the higher sales consideration than the amounts in the sale deed was mentioned. In the case of the appellant, there is no evidence found relating to appellant to suggest that the purchase consideration of the property was higher. The seized ATS does not relate to the transaction of the appellant

ACIT, CIRCLE CC 15, NEW DELHI vs. ALKA MENDIRATTA , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

house of the appellant maintained by her husband wherein the higher sales consideration than the amounts in the sale deed was mentioned. In the case of the appellant, there is no evidence found relating to appellant to suggest that the purchase consideration of the property was higher. The seized ATS does not relate to the transaction of the appellant

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

house property has to be computed strictly in accordance with the items provided in section 24. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is upheld and revenue’s ground No. 1 is dismissed and cross objection No. 3 as raised by the assessee is also dismissed. Share application money

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

house property has to be computed strictly in accordance with the items provided in section 24. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is upheld and revenue’s ground No. 1 is dismissed and cross objection No. 3 as raised by the assessee is also dismissed. Share application money

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

house property has to be computed strictly in accordance with the items provided in section 24. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is upheld and revenue’s ground No. 1 is dismissed and cross objection No. 3 as raised by the assessee is also dismissed. Share application money

M/S. MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result we dismiss the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year:

Housing and Development Board of Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court dated 16.09.2013 for Assessment Year 2003-04 to 2006-07. 7. In response to the argument of the ld AR the ld Departmental Representative Shri Vijay Verma, CIT DR vehemently defended the order of ld CIT and submitted as under:- ―1. With reference to above, the undersigned would like

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

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

4a and 4b of the assessment order has erred in recording the fact that the property 5/21, Roop Nagar, New Delhi was purchased by the assessee in her own name and there is no other co-owner of the said property. Referring to the sale deeds, the ld. Counsel pointed that it is clearly mentioned in the sale deeds dated

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. M/S GTM BUILDER AND PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Housing Society, also ignoring the provisions of section 132(4A) and Section 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? B. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and also on the prevailing law, Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- for acquiring certain rights in Wings CGHS ignoring

UMAK EDUCATION TRUST,DELHI vs. JCIT (E), RANGE- 2 , DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chatrurvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmaumak Education Trust, Vs. Jcit(E), S-135, Greater Kailash Ii, Range-2, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatu2598P

property or business held in trust and business carried on by or on behalf of the trust, the latter being the case of the appellant in which case the provisions of section 11(4A) will apply. Hence, based on the discussion above and on the facts as brought out by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, it is held

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

4A) read with section 292C of the Act. Also the burden lies entirely on the impugned assessment year. 5.3 That the ld. AO failed to raise any query or examine the opening credit balances (loans) even though the assessee repeatedly offered to provide the same by way of written submissions. 5.4 That the ld. CIT(A) has also failed

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

4A) read with section 292C of the Act. Also the burden lies entirely on the impugned assessment year. 5.3 That the ld. AO failed to raise any query or examine the opening credit balances (loans) even though the assessee repeatedly offered to provide the same by way of written submissions. 5.4 That the ld. CIT(A) has also failed