AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES (INTERNATIONAL) PRIVATE LTD,HARYANA vs. CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

house property as reported in form 26AS of the assessee. A questionnaire in this regard was issued by the AO through u/s 142(1) dated 03.02.2021. After considering the response of the assessee the AO observed as under; "On perusal of Form 26AS it is found that assessee has received rental income of Rs. 6,34,45,795/- on account

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , ITO C.R. BUILDING vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

property depending on whether\nthe leasing is the doing of the business or the exploitation of the\nproperty by its owner. In the given case, the deployment of funds in\nshort term investment is part and parcel of housing finance business\nof the assessee since the idle funds are available in the regular course\nof business of housing finance

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

property depending on whether\nthe leasing is the doing of the business or the exploitation of the\nproperty by its owner. In the given case, the deployment of funds in\nshort term investment is part and parcel of housing finance business\nof the assessee since the idle funds are available in the regular course\nof business of housing finance

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , CR BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

property depending on whether\nthe leasing is the doing of the business or the exploitation of the\nproperty by its owner. In the given case, the deployment of funds in\nshort term investment is part and parcel of housing finance business\nof the assessee since the idle funds are available in the regular course\nof business of housing finance

TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. ACME EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

Appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs

houses in India for residential purposes and which is [eligible for deduction under] clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36; [(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long- term finance for urban infrastructure in India. Explanation

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD., KASTURBA NAGAR

property depending on whether\nthe leasing is the doing of the business or the exploitation of the\nproperty by its owner. In the given case, the deployment of funds in\nshort term investment is part and parcel of housing finance business\nof the assessee since the idle funds are available in the regular course\nof business of housing finance

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

property depending on whether\nthe leasing is the doing of the business or the exploitation of the\nproperty by its owner. In the given case, the deployment of funds in\nshort term investment is part and parcel of housing finance business\nof the assessee since the idle funds are available in the regular course\nof business of housing finance

MUKUT BEHARI LAL BHARGAVA,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE(2)1, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalmukut Behari Lal Bhargava, Acit, Lcg 05, 04B Laburnum Complex, Circle-2(1), 1 4Th Floor, Sushant Lok 1, Vs. Gurgaon. Block-A, Sector-28 Haryana-122009. Pan-Adipb9356P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A) In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Gurugaon-1/10738/2018-19 Dated 05.02.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,20,41,040/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Has Issued Various Notices Which Were Replied By The Assessee. Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava Vs. Acit 3. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed At A Total Income Of Rs.1,79,36,182/- By Making Disallowance On Account Of Expenses Claimed On Costs Of Improvement Of Capital Asset, Disallowance Of Carry Forward Of Short Term Capital Gains & Long Term Capital Loss & Also Denied The Deduction Claimed U/S 80G Of The Act.

5. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. In Ground of appeal No. 1 assessee has challenged the denial of deduction claimed towards indexed cost of improvement from the computation of long terms capital gains arising out of the sale of house property. From the perusal of appellate order, it is seen that

RAJIV GANDHI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (EXEMPTION), RANGE- 2, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryrajiv Gandhi Charitable Vs. Jcit (Exemption) Trust, Jawahar Bhawan, Range – 2 3Rd Floor, Rajendra Prasad New Delhi Road, New Delhi

80G(5)(vi) of the Act. Assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2014-15 on 29.09.2014 declaring nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2016 by denying claim of sale of assets as application of income. 2. Aggrieved by the order

SHERVANI HOSPITALITIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

80G could not be claimed. Further, the amount involved is small. Examining the claim for depreciation of assets of Star Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. which had closed its restaurant in Nepal, the Tribunal recorded that the assessee had produced the RBI permission to close the restaurant but there was no evidence to show and prove that the assets were brought

VISHWA NATH & SANTOSH BAKSHI CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumari.T.A. No.8498/Del/2019

80G of the Act. In response, the Appellant Trust filed a copy of the Trust Deed and the financial statements for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 with a note on its activities. The CIT(E) vide notice dated 17.09.2019 asked the Trust to provide provisional financial statement for the year 2019-20 also along with details

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

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

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

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

RAJ KUMAR KARANWAL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. PR.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2010-11

5. The assessee also explained that the property sold on 21.08.2009 of Rs. 50,00,000/- is doubly reported. Therefore, AIR information regarding 3 sale of property of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- is incorrect. It should be Rs. 50,00,000/- & Rs. 35,00,000/- amounting in all to Rs. 85,00,000/-. 6. The explanation offered

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

houses and grant of free food and lodging to deserving students upon such terms and for such periods in each case as the Governing Board may think fit. 2012:DHC:3486-DB ITAs 1335/10 & 50/2011 Page 6 of 25 l. To grant endowment at Universities, Research Institutions and other educational and scientific institution for spread of education and knowledge

MODEL VILLAGE TRUST ,DELHI vs. SH. PRAKASH DUBEY CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos. 3189 & 3190/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:- बनाम Model Village Trust, Sh. Prakash Dubey, E-89, 4Th Floor, Flat No.402, Vs. Cit Exemption, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aagtm6481K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

80G assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to paper book filed before us which is running into pages 1 to 1351 submitted that all the necessary details were filed before the Ld. CIT(E) to prove the genuineness of the objects and activities of the assessee. Ld. Counsel submits that at the stage of granting registration

MODEL VILLAGE TRUST,DELHI vs. SH. PRAKASH DUBEY CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI , DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos. 3189 & 3190/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:- बनाम Model Village Trust, Sh. Prakash Dubey, E-89, 4Th Floor, Flat No.402, Vs. Cit Exemption, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aagtm6481K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

80G assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to paper book filed before us which is running into pages 1 to 1351 submitted that all the necessary details were filed before the Ld. CIT(E) to prove the genuineness of the objects and activities of the assessee. Ld. Counsel submits that at the stage of granting registration