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

House Property'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

House Property'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

House Property'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

House Property'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

House Property'. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the manner of allocation of expenses to eligible and non- eligible income without any cogent reason while computing the income eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4) of the Act, at Page 62-63 of the assessment order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

house properties in question constituted the stock-in- trade or the trading assets of the assessee firm made no difference to the question, was the income from these properties assessable under section 9 or under section 10 of the Income-tax Act. It was assessable only under section 9, and it was correctly assessed under section 9 of the Income

SELECT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

house property’ should be taxed as ‘business income’ and accordingly, disallowed the statutory deduction claimed by the assessee under I.T.A. No.3751, 3775&3752/D/2013 & ,5401,5402&5241/D/2014 7 section

PAVEL GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 63(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3606/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Pavel Garg, Vs Acit, Dtj-120, 1St Floor, Jasola Tower-B, Circle-63(1), Jasola, New Delhi-110025 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpg2923R Assessee By : Sh. S.B. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2022

house property remaining vacant. Section 24(1)(ix) was deleted from statute vide Finance Act, 2001 and simultaneously section 23(1)(c) was inserted. Prior to deletion, section 24(1)(ix) read as - “where the property is let and was vacant during a part of the year, that part of the annual value 6 Pavel Garg which is proportionate

MRS. RASHMI DHARIWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 11 and 12 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirashmi Dhariwal, Vs. Acit, Aashray Farms, Sub Po, Circle-23(1), Sawan Public School, Bhatti New Delhi Mines, Asola Village, New Delhi Pan:Aappd9702P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 23(1)(b), the actual rent would be the income from house property and there could not have been any further additions. 7

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OMAXE BUILDHOME (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu Assessment Year : 2008-09 Deputy Cit, Vs. M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Central Circle-4, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, New Delhi. Kalkaji, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Vs. Deputy Cit, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, Central Circle-4, Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Properties f20J2} 206 Taxman 584/ 19 taxmann. Cam 316, which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us. A perusal of above Judgment, it clearly reveals that hon'able High Court has taken and interpreted the definition of housing project u/s 80HHA to arrived at the concept of composite housing

M/S. IDEAL HITECH ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house property’, the computation of notional income by invoking section 23(1)(a) of the Act by lower authorities is based on fundamental misconception and unsustainable. 2.1 That Ld. CIT(Appeals) and Ld. Assessing Officer have failed to appreciate that the assessee was 3 entitled to vacancy allowance and as such, income alternatively had to be computed under section

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.

section 54F of the Act does not stand fulfilled in the instant case. Further, it was submitted that the assessee was only 50% owner 4 | P a g e of the said property and hence cannot be construed as absolute owner of the property. Consequentially, he cannot be held to be owning any house property on absolute basis

SH. BRIJ BHUSHAN TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. Prior to the amendment it was clear that a residential house would include multiple residential units. 8.13. I note that in the present case, assessee has sold the property in the next year in AY 2010-11 and withdrew the exemption claimed of Rs. 7

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

Section 5(1) of the PMLA, provisionally attaching the subject property. Inasmuch as the facts are not in dispute, and the issue is purely one of law, detailed allusion to the contents of the Provisional Attachment Order is eschewed. Suffice it, therefore, to reproduce, for 13 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property.— Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI CENTRAL III vs. MONI KUMAR SUBBA

Section 23 (1)(b), the actual rent would be the income from house property and there could not have been any further additions. 7

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

section 54 of the Act is available to one house property holding that the amendment which came into effect from 1.4.2015 has to be applied retrospectively. It is this proposition of Ld. CIT(A) which is sought to be challenged in the additional grounds taken by the assessee before the Tribunal. 7

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

House Property does not qualify for deduction u/s 80IAB based on the interpretation of section 80lAB read with the SEZ Act, 2005 and the observations on this issue of my predecessor in her order u/s 143(3) for the AY 2012-13. 7