PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. SALDI CHITS PVT. LTD.,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

property in question) and the enforcement authority (the State). Since the second of the above species of "proceeds of crime" uses the expression "such property", the qualifying word being "such", it is vivid that the "property" referred to here is equivalent to the one indicated by the first kind. The only difference is that it is not the same property

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

section 54 to only one house property of the assessee at 345 Block-C, Omaxe, Noida City, Greater Noida for Rs. 79,71,600/-. Accordingly, in para 20.20 he determined the LTCG at Rs. 98,81

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

Section 5(1) of the PMLA, provisionally attaching the subject property. Inasmuch as the facts are not in dispute, and the issue is purely one of law, detailed allusion to the contents of the Provisional Attachment Order is eschewed. Suffice it, therefore, to reproduce, for 13 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property.— Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

house property. The said tax position was also duly accepted by the department in the preceding and succeeding year. The assessee already claimed standard deduction under Section 24(a) of the Act to the tune of Rs.57,81

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

81,067/-.” The following final operative portions vide para 22 & 23 of this decision is very important to note as below “22. It is axiomatic that Section 54(1) of the said Act does not contemplate that the same money received from the sale of a residential house should be used in the acquisition of new residential house

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

House Property’. With regard to the AO’s allegation that the non-charging of rent by the 4.8 appellant trust from its beneficiaries was a tax saving tool, it is submitted that this observation does not hold any water. Had the appellant Trust charged rent from the principal beneficiary, on one hand, the rent would be taxable in its hands

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTER CIRCLE-4, DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

House Property’. With regard to the AO’s allegation that the non-charging of rent by the 4.8 appellant trust from its beneficiaries was a tax saving tool, it is submitted that this observation does not hold any water. Had the appellant Trust charged rent from the principal beneficiary, on one hand, the rent would be taxable in its hands

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

House Property’. With regard to the AO’s allegation that the non-charging of rent by the 4.8 appellant trust from its beneficiaries was a tax saving tool, it is submitted that this observation does not hold any water. Had the appellant Trust charged rent from the principal beneficiary, on one hand, the rent would be taxable in its hands

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

House Property’. With regard to the AO’s allegation that the non-charging of rent by the 4.8 appellant trust from its beneficiaries was a tax saving tool, it is submitted that this observation does not hold any water. Had the appellant Trust charged rent from the principal beneficiary, on one hand, the rent would be taxable in its hands

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

House Property’. With regard to the AO’s allegation that the non-charging of rent by the 4.8 appellant trust from its beneficiaries was a tax saving tool, it is submitted that this observation does not hold any water. Had the appellant Trust charged rent from the principal beneficiary, on one hand, the rent would be taxable in its hands

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

House Property’. With regard to the AO’s allegation that the non-charging of rent by the 4.8 appellant trust from its beneficiaries was a tax saving tool, it is submitted that this observation does not hold any water. Had the appellant Trust charged rent from the principal beneficiary, on one hand, the rent would be taxable in its hands

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

House Property’. With regard to the AO’s allegation that the non-charging of rent by the 4.8 appellant trust from its beneficiaries was a tax saving tool, it is submitted that this observation does not hold any water. Had the appellant Trust charged rent from the principal beneficiary, on one hand, the rent would be taxable in its hands

CORONET HOTEL SERVICES & SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

section 194 (1) of the Act which deals with the rental income and thus goes to show that the Assessee has earned rental income from House Property and therefore, no interference is warranted in the decision of the authorities below in treating the revenue receipts as ‘rental income from house property’. 8. We have heard the parties and perused

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

House Property". That in the case of the appellant the L.D A.O has claimed the Residential Property at "New Friends Colony, New Delhi" to be owned by the appellant, though on facts the said property has been claimed as a "Self Occupied" property by the mother of the appellant in her return filed by her Legal heir. The copy

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

House Property". That in the case of the appellant the L.D A.O has claimed the Residential Property at "New Friends Colony, New Delhi" to be owned by the appellant, though on facts the said property has been claimed as a "Self Occupied" property by the mother of the appellant in her return filed by her Legal heir. The copy

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

81 taxmann.com 193 (SC). 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating incidental and compulsory services such as power backup, security, lifts, etc., as "complex commercial support services without establishing independent or standalone business character, which are in fact inherent in property leasing activity and not constituting

SHRI M M CREATIONS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai & M. M. Creations Acit T-481A, Baljeet Nagar Circle-24(1), Behind Patel Nagar Police Station New Delhi Vs. New Delhi. Pan : Aaefm9802A (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property, as it does not involve any commercial activity. In the paper book Ld. AR placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Kayram Hotels Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2015) 373 ITR 494 and decision Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd., reported

ASHOK KUMAR SHAHI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y.: 2014-15

house property' in earlier years. If that be so, then the interest paid on the loan cannot be treated as part of 'the cost of acquisition'. However, if the assessee has not been allowed such deduction in earlier years, then in view of the decision in the case of Maithreyi Pai (supra), the interest should form part of 'the cost