Commissioner of Income Tax-IV

house property’. 13. Once it is held that the income from the three properties is taxable under the head ‘income from business or profession’ depreciation has to be allowed under the provisions of Section 32 of the Act. Similarly, disallowance of 80% from the expenses deleted by the CIT(Appeals)/tribunal has been explained and supported by cogent

CIT vs. FRANCIS WACZIARG

house property’. 13. Once it is held that the income from the three properties is taxable under the head ‘income from business or profession’ depreciation has to be allowed under the provisions of Section 32 of the Act. Similarly, disallowance of 80% from the expenses deleted by the CIT(Appeals)/tribunal has been explained and supported by cogent

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuin Ita No. 4478/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs. Ito C-51, Phase-1, Ashok Ward 15(3), Vihar, Delhi New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aehpg1092B)

house property. Admittedly clause (c) does not apply to the facts of Page 5 of 16 this case as none of the property remained vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year. It is seen that the Assessing Officer has determined the ALV of all the immovable properties other than the property self occupied by the assessee

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on ground no

house of assessee only for service of paper dt. 24.12.2017 on dt. 26.12.2017 and there was no evidence on the file that ITI has been deputed for statement and no questionnaire available on the office records file. V. That the assessee submit all the evidence of Income and securities and commodity losses which is verified by the ITO in long

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

69C of the Act, the burden is on the revenue. The texture and colour of both the provisions are same: (a) CIT vs Daya Chand Jain (Allahabad HC) reported in 98 ITR 280. CIT vs. Dr. S. Bharti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

69C of the Act, the burden is on the revenue. The texture and colour of both the provisions are same: (a) CIT vs Daya Chand Jain (Allahabad HC) reported in 98 ITR 280. CIT vs. Dr. S. Bharti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

69C of the Act, the burden is on the revenue. The texture and colour of both the provisions are same: (a) CIT vs Daya Chand Jain (Allahabad HC) reported in 98 ITR 280. CIT vs. Dr. S. Bharti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

69C of the Act, the burden is on the revenue. The texture and colour of both the provisions are same: (a) CIT vs Daya Chand Jain (Allahabad HC) reported in 98 ITR 280. CIT vs. Dr. S. Bharti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of ss. 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc. and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of ss. 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc. and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

ANUPAMA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

House Property and Income from other sources. The assessee is Employee- Director of M/s. Premier Polyfilm Ltd. The assessee filed necessary details which have been examined by the A.O. The A.O. found that the assessee claimed Rs.23.44.613/- as long term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of listed shares. Part of the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) has been claimed

PUSHPA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

House Property and Income from other sources. The assessee is Employee- Director of M/s. Premier Polyfilm Ltd. The assessee filed necessary details which have been examined by the A.O. The A.O. found that the assessee claimed Rs.23.44.613/- as long term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of listed shares. Part of the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) has been claimed

RAJESH GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

House Property and Income from other sources. The assessee is Employee- Director of M/s. Premier Polyfilm Ltd. The assessee filed necessary details which have been examined by the A.O. The A.O. found that the assessee claimed Rs.23.44.613/- as long term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of listed shares. Part of the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) has been claimed

BHUSHAN GARG (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

House Property and Income from other sources. The assessee is Employee- Director of M/s. Premier Polyfilm Ltd. The assessee filed necessary details which have been examined by the A.O. The A.O. found that the assessee claimed Rs.23.44.613/- as long term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of listed shares. Part of the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) has been claimed

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly