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, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATBIR SINGH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri O.P.Kantacit, Satbir Singh, Circle-33(1), 4/73, Wea Krishna Vs. New Delhi Market, Karolbagh, New Delhi Pan:Aogps9991A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. Dr, Respondent By : Sh. Y.P. Rawala, Ca

house property" instead of Page 2 of 10 "income from other sources" in view of the decision in M K Dar vs CIT (1982) 138 ITR 801 (All.) and CIT vs DL Kanhere (1973) 92 ITR 535 (Bom.) where it was held that the lease income enjoyed from the letting out of the cinema building and the furniture, etc. would

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 23 of the Act, the sum for which the property of the assessee company at 48, friends Colony East, New Delhi, might reasonably be expected to be let out was Rs. 11,77,528/- (41,69,718 x 28.24%) and this amount should have been shown by the assessee as its income from house property 5 Mission Viejo Estate

PRAMOD KUMAR SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

HOUSE PROPERTY 157528 TAX ON Rs.110000 Nil TAX ON RS.4000(150000-110000) @ 10% 4000 TAX ON RS.7030(157300150000) @20% 1406 TAX ON Rs.157030 5406 5406 ADD EDUCATION CESS @ 2% 108 5414 ADD SECONDARY & HIGHER EDU.CESS @ 1% 54 5568 ADD INTEREST PAYABLE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A 440 INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B 660 INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234C 202 1302 6870 LESS SELF

AJAY KUMAR SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

HOUSE PROPERTY 157528 TAX ON Rs.110000 Nil TAX ON RS.4000(150000-110000) @ 10% 4000 TAX ON RS.7030(157300150000) @20% 1406 TAX ON Rs.157030 5406 5406 ADD EDUCATION CESS @ 2% 108 5414 ADD SECONDARY & HIGHER EDU.CESS @ 1% 54 5568 ADD INTEREST PAYABLE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A 440 INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B 660 INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234C 202 1302 6870 LESS SELF

SIDHARTH JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 Sh. Sidharth Jain, C-780, New Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2), Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan: Aaapj2273Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property”. 3.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is seen that the property consists of more than 100 shops and the tenants frequently exit the properties and thus the assessee is required to regularly make agreements. The assessee has also employed staff for recovering of rent from the tenants. In view

VIDYA EDUCATION INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

House Property”. The assessee further submitted that deduction is allowable as the borrowings have nexus with the construction of the property. Since the interest is charged on borrowed capital utilized for acquiring and constructing of the property, therefore, it is an allowable deduction under section 24(b) of the I.T. Act. The 27 ITA.No.6177/Del./2014 Vidya Education Investments

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

801 (SC) and pointed out that the Apex Court has held in these casesthat the test of human probability after considering the surrounding circumstances should be applied. Thereafter in light of these decisions the ld. CIT(A) has held that the appellant’s explanation fails the test of human probability, without however specifying and/or explaining as to how these decisions

M/S. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHAN ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3569/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishan Estate Acit Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Circle-58(1), C/O Pradeep & Co., Tax Advocate, New Delhi. 7, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. Pan No.Abgfs9748C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3926/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Acit Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishan Vs. Circle-58(1), Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., Room No.218, D-32, Main Vikas Marg, D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Abgfs9748C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

801 B(10) of the Act and the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 80IB(10) of the Act.” 37. In the proceedings before us, the Department could not point out any judgment/judicial precedent to the contrary. We accordingly hold that the balconies open to the sky are to be excluded from the calculation of the built

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHAN ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3569/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishan Estate Acit Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Circle-58(1), C/O Pradeep & Co., Tax Advocate, New Delhi. 7, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. Pan No.Abgfs9748C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3926/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Acit Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishan Vs. Circle-58(1), Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., Room No.218, D-32, Main Vikas Marg, D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Abgfs9748C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

801 B(10) of the Act and the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 80IB(10) of the Act.” 37. In the proceedings before us, the Department could not point out any judgment/judicial precedent to the contrary. We accordingly hold that the balconies open to the sky are to be excluded from the calculation of the built

MODI ENTERTAINMENT LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5 (1),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

801, wherein the House of Lords disapproved the judgment of the Court of Appeal treating an earlier judgment of the House of Lords as per incurium. Lord Hailsham observed (at page 809): 'It is not open to the Court of appeal to give gratuitous advice to judges of first instance to ignore decisions of the House of Lords in this

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

801 one finds a useful compilation of meaning attached to the word "manufacture" from various dictrionaries and other sources. Similarly, the word "produce" with reference to its meaning in industry or political economy has two different senses. In vol. 8 of the Oxford Dictionary, at page 1422, the two meaning are given as follows

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

Properties (P) Ltd. : 343 ITR 141 (Del.). (c) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT: 308 ITR 38 (Del.). (d) CIT v. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF): 306 ITR 173 (Del.). (e) CIT v. Motor & General Finance Ltd.: 184 Taxman 465 (Del.). (f) CIT v. ITW India Ltd.: 377 ITR 195 (P&H). (g) Oriental Carpet Mfrs. (India

Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

House, as the case may be), issues a certificate referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4A), that in respect of the amount of the export turnover specified therein, the deduction under this sub-section is to be allowed to a supporting manufacturer, then the amount of deduction in the case of the asses-see shall be reduced

PARVEEN AGGARWAL,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

Accordingly the same are hereby upheld. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Parveen Aggarwal, Vs Acit, Ma-1/7, 3D, Garden Central Circle-14, Estate, M.G.Road, Gurgaon New Delhi Haryana-122002. Pan-Aahpa0660R Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Parveen Aggarwal, Central Circle-14, Ma-1/7, 3D, Garden New Delhi Estate, M.G.Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aahpa0660R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri K.Sampath, Adv. & Shri V.Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Cross-Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 27, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 28.11.2022 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-27/10482/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dt. 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita Nos.178 & 197/Del/2023

section 147 of the Act. It is evident from the above discussion that in this case, the issues under consideration were never examined by the AO during the course of regular assessment/reassessment this fact is corroborated from the contents of notices issued by the AO u/s 143(2)/142(1) and order sheet entries recorded during the 143(3)/147

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI vs. PARVEEN AGGARWAL, GURGAON

Accordingly the same are hereby upheld. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Parveen Aggarwal, Vs Acit, Ma-1/7, 3D, Garden Central Circle-14, Estate, M.G.Road, Gurgaon New Delhi Haryana-122002. Pan-Aahpa0660R Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Parveen Aggarwal, Central Circle-14, Ma-1/7, 3D, Garden New Delhi Estate, M.G.Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aahpa0660R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri K.Sampath, Adv. & Shri V.Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Cross-Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 27, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 28.11.2022 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-27/10482/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dt. 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita Nos.178 & 197/Del/2023

section 147 of the Act. It is evident from the above discussion that in this case, the issues under consideration were never examined by the AO during the course of regular assessment/reassessment this fact is corroborated from the contents of notices issued by the AO u/s 143(2)/142(1) and order sheet entries recorded during the 143(3)/147

USHA DEVI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 44(6), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Usha Devi, Ito, 30B/78, West Punjabi Bagh, Ward-44(6), Delhi-110026, Delhi. Vs Delhi. Pan- Aafpa1096H Assessee Revenue

section 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 7. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. While dismissing the appeal of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) took note of the fact that the assessee had not filed any documentary

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. KRISHNA SHRIRAM, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

house property Rs.7,35,500/- iii. Income from business/profession Rs.3,30,065/- iv. Income from other sources + Income of any Rs.60.223/- other person Gross total income Rs.4,65,658/- Returned income Rs.4,65,658/- Tax paid Rs.86,197/- 13(a) An abstract of form 2D of Ms. Roula Shriram is attached to the order as annexure-'5'. The above details