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)

77, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi to M/s Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. was a colourable device or that it was meant to evade due tax. 5(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in estimating the Annual Letting

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)

77,67,830 declared by it. In the assessment order, the assessing officer denied the aforesaid deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Act to the extent of Rs.188,25,94,379. 5. In the first appeal, the learned CIT(A) allowed partial relief in respect of claim u/s 80IB(10) allowing the deduction only on built up residential

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 54 being investment in residential property of Rs. 12,07,539/- against the sale consideration of Rs. 18,10,000/-. 5. Assessee has invested the amount of Rs. 12,07,539 in two residential properties:- i. Purchase of Residential House in AG-587, Shalimar 8agh with 50% share of his son Rs.4,77

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

TUBE ROSE ESTATES PVT. LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result ground number one – three of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 24 of the IT Act only 30% deduction out of rent amount is to be allowed to the assessee in respect of house property for collection of rent, repair and maintenance of building and there is no separate provision for allowability of expense under any other head of income. In view of above, AO held that the following income

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

houses assets (new property) where as deduction u/s 54 is allowable only for ‘one’ property. Against reopening his arguments are :- i. He submitted that deduction u/s 54EC of the act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Honourable Madras High Court in CIT versus C Jaichander 370 ITR 579, wherein it has been held 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

houses assets (new property) where as deduction u/s 54 is allowable only for ‘one’ property. Against reopening his arguments are :- i. He submitted that deduction u/s 54EC of the act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Honourable Madras High Court in CIT versus C Jaichander 370 ITR 579, wherein it has been held that

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

houses assets (new property) where as deduction u/s 54 is allowable only for ‘one’ property. Against reopening his arguments are :- i. He submitted that deduction u/s 54EC of the act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Honourable Madras High Court in CIT versus C Jaichander 370 ITR 579, wherein it has been held that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KENMORE VIKAS INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2012-13

section 14 and 22 of the I.T.Act, it would seem that any income from property (building and land appurtenant thereto) has to be taxed u/s 22. 6 DCIT vs. Kenmore Vikas India (P) Ltd. (ii) whether income earned from ownership vis-a-vis exploitation of the property in question can be treated as rental income, income from other sources

SH. ADARSH KUMAR SWARUP,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

house properties with the assessee apart from new property purchased during the year, which are as under:- Delhi Kothi 5,55,504/- Mussorie Flat 4,77,500/- As per proviso of section

M/S. MISSION VIEJO AGRO PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4236/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Mission Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 48, Friends Colony, Central Circle-23, New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1160C Assessee By : Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Impugned Assessment Order Passed Under Sections 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Without Jurisdiction, Illegal & Bad In Law Since The Prerequisite Conditions For Initiating Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Not Fulfilled In The Present Case. 2. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Alleged Fair Rental Value At Rs.11,77,528/- & Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.11,77,528/- Under The Head Income From House Property. 3. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.7,00,000/- Received From M/S 2 Mission Viejo Estate Pvt. Ltd. Golden Techno Build Pvt. Ltd. As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. 4. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Aforesaid Addition Of Rs.7 Lacs Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Discharged Its Onus In Terms Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Ground No. 1 Is Not Pressed, Therefore, The Same Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

section 147 of the Act were not fulfilled in the present case. 2. That the CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the alleged fair rental value at Rs.11,77,528/- and thereby making an addition of Rs.11,77,528/- under the head income from house property

DLF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

house property’ to ‘income from business or profession’ and thereby making addition of Rs. 21,27,10,118/-. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 21,27,10,118/- made by the AO is deleted.” In view of the aforesaid finding, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has given a correct finding and as submitted by the Ld. AR for the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER | ITA NO. 674/Del/2024 | | A.YR.: 2018-19 | | DLF LIMITED, | | 9TH FLOOR, DLF CENTRE, | | SANSAD MARG, | | NEW DELHI – 110 001 | | (PAN: AAACD3494N) | | (APPELLANT) | | VS. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI | | (RESPONDENT) | AND | ITA NO. 712/DEL/2024 | | AY 2018-19 | | DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1), | | NEW DELHI | | ROOM NO. 404, 4TH FLOOR, | | C.R. BUILDING, | | I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 2 | | (RESPONDENT) | | VS.

house property’ to ‘income from business or profession’ and thereby making addition of Rs. 21,27,10,118/-. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 21,27,10,118/- made by the AO is deleted.” In view of the aforesaid finding, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has given a correct finding and as submitted by the Ld. AR for the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ADARSH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaa.Y. 2012-13

house property" and "other sources. Besides, during the year under consideration, the assessee also in receipt of Rs.1,89,68,895/- on account of sale of shares of M/s iEnergizer Ltd. out of which he claimed as deduction u/s 54F of the I. T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.1,16,77,825/- and offered the balance amount of Rs.72

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition