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

66,023/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim regarding the same being 'Eligible income' qualifying for deduction u/s 801A (4), under the head 'Facility Management Services'. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding Signage income' ( 120,12,680) and 'Amount forfeited on property' (8,60,990) aggregating 1,28,73,670/- derived

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

66,023/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim regarding the same being 'Eligible income' qualifying for deduction u/s 801A (4), under the head 'Facility Management Services'. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding Signage income' ( 120,12,680) and 'Amount forfeited on property' (8,60,990) aggregating 1,28,73,670/- derived

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

66,023/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim regarding the same being 'Eligible income' qualifying for deduction u/s 801A (4), under the head 'Facility Management Services'. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding Signage income' ( 120,12,680) and 'Amount forfeited on property' (8,60,990) aggregating 1,28,73,670/- derived

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

66,023/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim regarding the same being 'Eligible income' qualifying for deduction u/s 801A (4), under the head 'Facility Management Services'. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding Signage income' ( 120,12,680) and 'Amount forfeited on property' (8,60,990) aggregating 1,28,73,670/- derived

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

66,023/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim regarding the same being 'Eligible income' qualifying for deduction u/s 801A (4), under the head 'Facility Management Services'. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding Signage income' ( 120,12,680) and 'Amount forfeited on property' (8,60,990) aggregating 1,28,73,670/- derived

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 24 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further disallowed certain expenses claimed by the assessee in return of income. 4. The case of the assessee is that there was composite rent received which included not only rent of premises but also includes various services which were suppose to be rendered like electricity, telephone lines, fax lines, water, repair & maintenance

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

property in question) and the enforcement authority (the State). Since the second of the above species of "proceeds of crime" uses the expression "such property", the qualifying word being "such", it is vivid that the "property" referred to here is equivalent to the one indicated by the first kind. The only difference is that it is not the same property

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

property in question) and the enforcement authority (the State). Since the second of the above species of "proceeds of crime" uses the expression "such property", the qualifying word being "such", it is vivid that the "property" referred to here is equivalent to the one indicated by the first kind. The only difference is that it is not the same property

RAJEEV VASUDEVA,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1) , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: us, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

66,420/-. The assessee made investments of ½ share in Plot no. 10, Ground Floor & First Floor, Padmini Enclave, Delhi and claimed 2 | P a g e exemption under section 54F of the Act to the tune of Rs.3,83,55,102/- and remaining amount of Rs.2,58,11,318/- was duly declared as long-term capital gain by the assessee

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

section 115JB at Rs.257,66,45,801.” 7. Ergo, AO has accepted that assessee’s income is liable for 100% deduction u/s 80IAB and has computed the income at ‘nil’. However, he has held that instead of income shown by the assessee under the head “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

section 115JB at Rs.257,66,45,801.” 7. Ergo, AO has accepted that assessee’s income is liable for 100% deduction u/s 80IAB and has computed the income at ‘nil’. However, he has held that instead of income shown by the assessee under the head “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

section 115JB at Rs.257,66,45,801.” 7. Ergo, AO has accepted that assessee’s income is liable for 100% deduction u/s 80IAB and has computed the income at ‘nil’. However, he has held that instead of income shown by the assessee under the head “income from house property

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

66,49,424/-) under the head 'income from house property' without appreciating that S.23 of the Income Tax Act 1961 has undergone 32 ITA-790 to 792/Del/2015 amendment vide Finance Act 2001w.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:- (a). In not appreciating

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

66,49,424/-) under the head 'income from house property' without appreciating that S.23 of the Income Tax Act 1961 has undergone 32 ITA-790 to 792/Del/2015 amendment vide Finance Act 2001w.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:- (a). In not appreciating

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

66,49,424/-) under the head 'income from house property' without appreciating that S.23 of the Income Tax Act 1961 has undergone 32 ITA-790 to 792/Del/2015 amendment vide Finance Act 2001w.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:- (a). In not appreciating

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

house at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, purchased and acquired by Smt Alka Rajvansh W/o Shri Homi Rajvansh, in the name of her company M/s Mahanivesh Oil and Foods Pvt Ltd, against the consideration value of ₹ 1,35,00,000/- excluding stamp duty and Corpn. tax of ₹ 10,80,000/- is the Proceeds of Crime, which is likely to be concealed

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 263 of the Act not being satisfied i.e. the assessment order is erroneous (in addition to being prejudicial to the interest of revenue), failing which the proposed exercise of any revisionary powers thereunder would also be without lawful jurisdiction for the same reason. It also settled law vide Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh. [1963]1 S.C.R

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that