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' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

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' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

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' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

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' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

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' in these years. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 801A, held that the scope of section 801A (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 801A by treating eligible business

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’ in these years. 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 80IA, held that the scope of section 80IA (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 80IA by treating eligible business

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’ in these years. 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 80IA, held that the scope of section 80IA (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 80IA by treating eligible business

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’ in these years. 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. reported in (2022) 441 ITR 346 in the context of section 80IA, held that the scope of section 80IA (5) is limited to determine the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of section 80IA by treating eligible business

MRS. ANITA RANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm Ita No. 3117/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Mrs. Samiksha Mahajan, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2, Avenue Cassia, Westend Tax, Central Circle-22, Greens, Rajokari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akdpm4000H Ita No. 3118/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Mrs. Anita Rani, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2, Avenue Cassia, Westend Tax, Central Circle-22, Greens, Rajokari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepr2569P Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sambhav Rastogi Revenue By : Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2016

house property’. To resolve the present controversy, it is relevant to discuss the provision contained under sections 80C(1), 80C

MRS. SAMKIKSHA MAHAJAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm Ita No. 3117/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Mrs. Samiksha Mahajan, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2, Avenue Cassia, Westend Tax, Central Circle-22, Greens, Rajokari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akdpm4000H Ita No. 3118/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Mrs. Anita Rani, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2, Avenue Cassia, Westend Tax, Central Circle-22, Greens, Rajokari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepr2569P Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sambhav Rastogi Revenue By : Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2016

house property’. To resolve the present controversy, it is relevant to discuss the provision contained under sections 80C(1), 80C

SMT. NEELAM HANDA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishineelam Handa, Ito, C-7/7, Ground Floor, Ward-20(4), Vs. Model Town-Iii, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abgph5388D (Appellant) (Respondent)

property for claiming exemption under section 54 of the Act. The Tribunal placed reliance upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of Bombay Housing Corporation [2002] 81 ITD 545 (Mumbai). But, this case pertains to the exemption claimed under section 54E of the Act and under section 54E there is no provision like sub- section (4) which puts

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

section 24(a) -65710 TAXABLE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY 153325 105 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE 105 Interest Bank S.B. Account 105 Taxable income from other sources ________ GROSS TOTAL INCOME 153430 Less deduction under chapter-VIA 80C

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

section 24(a) -65710 TAXABLE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY 153325 105 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE 105 Interest Bank S.B. Account 105 Taxable income from other sources ________ GROSS TOTAL INCOME 153430 Less deduction under chapter-VIA 80C

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

HOUSE PROPERTY 1,31,761 2. INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION i. Net profit from business as show by the assessee : Rs. 37,29,547 ii. Add: bogus purchase : 20,69,898 iii. Add: Claim of depreciation : Rs. 4,83,994 iv. Add: Interest Payment disallowed : Rs. 1,20,213 v. Add: Personal expenses

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

house property”, “profits and gains of business and professions”, “capital gains” and “income from other sources”. Then comes Section 14A, which we will be examining later on. Chapter IV consists of Sections 14 to 59 and deals with computation/quantification under separate heads of income mentioned in Section 14. Chapter V of the Act deals with income of other persons, which

CIT vs. KRIBHCO

house property”, “profits and gains of business and professions”, “capital gains” and “income from other sources”. Then comes Section 14A, which we will be examining later on. Chapter IV consists of Sections 14 to 59 and deals with computation/quantification under separate heads of income mentioned in Section 14. Chapter V of the Act deals with income of other persons, which

VIVEK SHEEL AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-23(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royvivek Sheel Aggarwal, Vs. Dcit, Circle 23 (1), D – 107, Anand Niketan, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 021. (Pan : Adqpa3242B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi Dated 17.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Observed That The Case Was Filed By The Assessee On 28.02.2019 & Since The Date Of Listing Of The Appeal On Several Occasions, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Taken Adjournments. We Observed That The Matter Is Being Listed For 14 Times Earlier & Filed In The Year 2019. Accordingly

section 24, the assessee can claim interest on self occupied house property to the extent of Rs1,50,000/- only and in the instant case, the assessee not only claimed Rs.1,50,000- as interest being house property loss but also claimed a further deduction of Rs.39,43,516/- u/s 57 of the Act. He observed that this treatment

MR. VIJAY AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years: 2008-09 Vijay Aggarwal Dcit C/O M/S. Kashyap & Co. Vs Central Circle- 1 Cas, 214, Citi Centre, Faridabad Begum Bridge Road, Meerut – 250001 Pan No. Aazpa6461C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80C also applies only if the repayment is made for loans taken for acquiring house property assets. In the present

MR. VIJAY AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years: 2008-09 Vijay Aggarwal Dcit C/O M/S. Kashyap & Co. Vs Central Circle- 1 Cas, 214, Citi Centre, Faridabad Begum Bridge Road, Meerut – 250001 Pan No. Aazpa6461C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80C also applies only if the repayment is made for loans taken for acquiring house property assets. In the present