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

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' 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

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

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

DHEERAJ THAKRAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Dheeraj Thakran, Vs Ito, C/O Nagesh Bhel & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), 21/25, Moti Nagar, Hsiidc Building, New Delhi. Udyog Vihar-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aewpt8543B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

80C of the IT Act is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) also upheld the same on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding such claim. The ld.CIT(A) also sustained the addition of Rs.84,772/- being interest on savings bank account and Rs.40,819/- being interest on fixed deposits. So far as the addition

DABUR INDIA LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: We Consider The Submissions Made In Support Of The Appeal The Following Facts Require To Be Noted:- 2.1 The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Herbal Products & Cosmetics. On 30.11.2000 Assessee Filed Its Return For Assessment Year 2000-01 Wherein, It Declared An Income Of Rs 12,15,25,093/-. On 10.5.2001 The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Act As The Returned Income. However, Notices Were Issued Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. 2.2 In Response To The Aforesaid Notices, Hearing Was Attended By An Authorized Representative Before The Assessing Officer. 2008:Dhc:2521

house property (D) – Profits and gains of business or profession (E) – Capital gains (F)- Income from other sources. 9.4 In the instant case, we are concerned with “profits and gains of business or profession”. Section 28 of the Act provides that, amongst others, income from “profits and gains of business or profession” which was carried on by the assessee during

ARPIT GARG,GURGAON vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumar

house property. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld. CIT (A) has erred and not provided sufficient opportunity to produce evidence of Rs. 1,50,000 claimed as deduction under section 80C

ARPIT GARG,GURGAON vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumar

house property. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld. CIT (A) has erred and not provided sufficient opportunity to produce evidence of Rs. 1,50,000 claimed as deduction under section 80C

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. GAUTAM GULATI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhry

house property, disallowance of deductions u/s 80C, 80G and 80D of the Act etc. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 08.08.2018 in Appeal Nos. 372 to 374, 384, 385, 397 & 398/16-17 granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before

RAHUL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

house property 7,82,173 4. Income from other sources 3,68,813 5. Deduction under chapter VIA (1,00,000) (Section 80C

RAVINDER BANSAL,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

house property 7,82,173 4. Income from other sources 3,68,813 5. Deduction under chapter VIA (1,00,000) (Section 80C

SHRI BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property. Assessee made cheque payment of Rs. 10 lakhs and cash payment of Rs.33,35,000/- for purchase of above property . Assessee submitted that the above payment of Rs. 46,26,000/- is made from over-draft account. This contention was rejected by the Assessing Officer as no further information was filed. Further addition