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

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. MANUPATRA INFORMATION SOLUTION

The appeal is disposed of declaring the law as above and setting aside

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

property. But, no less important, copyright is deeply rooted in our conception of ourselves as individuals with at least a modest grade of singularity, some degree of personality. And it is associated with our sense of privacy and our conviction, at least in theory, that it is essential to limit the power of the State. We are not ready

MR. SANJEEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 and 4 With respect to the disallowance of export commission of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjeev Gupta, Vs. Addl. Cit, E-31, Kamla Nagar, Range-20, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Ahcpg7326A (Appellant) (Respondent)

66 taxmann.com 321 (Madras)], wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the assessee/respondent is that the agency commission/sales commission paid by the assessee to non-resident agents, for the services rendered by them, outside India, in procuring export orders for the assessee, would not attract or partake the character

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

house property and income from other sources. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not be entitled to claim benefit of exception, carved out in Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 7. Shourva Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

house property and income from other sources. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not be entitled to claim benefit of exception, carved out in Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 7. Shourva Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

house property and income from other sources. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not be entitled to claim benefit of exception, carved out in Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 7. Shourva Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

Housing Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center Delhi ; 441 ITR 285(del)  Devanshu Infin Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center Delhi ;284 Taxman 36  Ramprastha Buildwell (P.) Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center, Delhi; 283 Taxman 235 13  KRS Home Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre ;283 Taxman 413  Umkal Healthcare (P.) Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

CENTRAL GOVT.EMP. CONSUMER COO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is dismissed and pending applications

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

House of Lords decided that a “matter of degree” is a question of fact and it has also been decided that a finding by the Commissioners of a fact under a misapprehension of law or want of evidence to support a finding are both questions of law. 25. The Privy Council in CIT v. Laxminarain Badridas

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

housing all other assets i.e. plant and machinery etc. So, the allegation is totally out of context. 6 Explanation 3 of section 43(1) requires the AO to determine the actual cost at such an amount as the AO may determine having regard to all the ITA No.316/Del/2013 circumstances of the case. The AO has adopted WDV of the previous