M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

83,96,980/- (out of Rs.5,90,67,704/-) under the head 'income from house property' without appreciating that S.23 of the Income Tax Act 1961 has undergone amendment vide Finance c 2001 w.e.f.1.4.2002 and old law cannot be applied to the year under consideration. 1.3. Without prejudice to the above ground no. 1.1, learned CIT(A) erred

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

83,96,980/- (out of Rs.5,90,67,704/-) under the head 'income from house property' without appreciating that S.23 of the Income Tax Act 1961 has undergone amendment vide Finance c 2001 w.e.f.1.4.2002 and old law cannot be applied to the year under consideration. 1.3. Without prejudice to the above ground no. 1.1, learned CIT(A) erred

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

83,96,980/- (out of Rs.5,90,67,704/-) under the head 'income from house property' without appreciating that S.23 of the Income Tax Act 1961 has undergone amendment vide Finance c 2001 w.e.f.1.4.2002 and old law cannot be applied to the year under consideration. 1.3. Without prejudice to the above ground no. 1.1, learned CIT(A) erred

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

Section 263 of the Act directing the Ld.\nAO to pass assessment order afresh on the issue of incorrect claim of\nPage 5\nITA Nos.1868 & 1869/Del/2025\nAmbience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19 & 2020-21)\nhouse property as already envisaged hereinabove upon considering the\ncomplete facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the instant appeal\nbefore

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

Section 263 of the Act directing the Ld.\nAO to pass assessment order afresh on the issue of incorrect claim of\nPage 5\nITA Nos.1868 & 1869/Del/2025\nAmbience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19 & 2020-21)\nhouse property as already envisaged hereinabove upon considering the\ncomplete facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the instant appeal\nbefore

PADAM CHAND GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 35(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Padam Chand Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner 1-C Court Road Civil Lines Of Income Tax, Income Tax Delhi 110054 Circle 35(1) New Delhi Pan No. Aanpg5120C (Appellant) (Respondent)

83,76,610/-. The return of the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS with the flowing region. (i) High increase in annual lettable value of house property

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

House Property' instead of „Income from Other Sources‟ completely disregarding the provisions of Section 56 of the Act and decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. a. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO and Hon‟ble DRP erred in not allowing proportionate tax depreciation and expenses under section ('u/s') 57 of the Act amounting to Rs.16

ASHUTOSH GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2013-14

83,907/- by restricting the claim of depreciation to 15% on leased cars. (ii) That the addition has been confirmed without appreciating the fact that the cars were being used for hiring. 3.(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action

RAM KISHORE SETH,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmalate Shri Ram Kishore Seth, Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir, Smt. Rama Seth), New Delhi. Nd-63, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Ejips0799P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 Date Of Order : 09.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 16.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

section is very clear that the assessee can have not more than one house, it means that the assessee can have one house plus another independent residential house to claim the deduction. The courts have held clearly that the residential house means it should contain room, hall and kitchen. Therefore, what is relevant to treat the independent residential house

NITIN GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 34(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Nitin Gupta, Vs. Ito, C-1/23, Ashok Vihar Phase-Ii, Ward-34(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aeapg4313C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2021 Order

83,495/-, the assessee declared net loss of Rs.1,49,612/- under the head ‘Income from house property.’ He submitted that the assessee had filed the return of income in a foreign country which was submitted during the assessment proceedings. He submitted that since the assessee was resident in 6 India as per the provisions of section

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

properties claimed as being vacant farm lands needs verification by the AO for ascertaining the correctness of the claim that no house/building was constructed on such lands. Thus the issue is hereby, restored to AO. If it is found true that during the relevant time, no house property/commercial space were constructed thereon. No addition would be called for. Thus, Ground

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

house property. The DRP vide its directions dated 18.09.2023 passed u/s 144C(13) of the Act, upheld the aforesaid action of the AO, pursuant to which final assessment order dated 18.10.2023 was passed at an assessed income of Rs. 4,16,38,920/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act. The assessee has earned an LTCG

WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

house property, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the findings of the AO that the income derived from Business Centre is an income from property and not from business. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have directed the AO to have reduced the income of Business Centre from the head ‘property’ while computing the income from property

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

house property, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83

SUNANDAN KUMAR MINOCHA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-63(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

83,921.50 and claimed deduction u/s 54 which resulted into ‘nil’ long term capital gain. AO observed that assessee has invested the receipts of sale proceeds of its 3 units on 3 different locations of the city and, therefore, deduction u/s 54 is not available, because the same is available only “a” residential house and not for every residential properties

RAJNI KUMAR WIFE OF SHRI BRIG. NARENDER KUMAR H.NO.394, SECTOR-21, GURGAONN,GURGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrajni Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), W/O Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ayypk1781A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & The Assessment Order Was Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

83 taxmann.com 49 Mumbai Tribunal it was held that completion of the construction or possession of the residential house is not material if assessee has invested the substantial part of the money for acquisition or construction of residential house. In such a case deduction u/s. 54 or 54F cannot be denied. vi) In the case of CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari

JANAK KUMARI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-59(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

house property in comparison to the earlier years. Assessee claimed that her property situated in basement of 83, Block G, Preet Vihar, remained vacant during assessment year 2014-15, hence, fall in her income. Assessing Officer after getting the facts verified from the Inspector reached the conclusion that since the property in question

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