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

SELECT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

house property’ should be taxed as ‘business income’ and accordingly, disallowed the statutory deduction claimed by the assessee under I.T.A. No.3751, 3775&3752/D/2013 & ,5401,5402&5241/D/2014 7 section 24(a) of Rs. 8,11,43,540/-. He also disallowed 1/5th interest for pre-construction period amounting to Rs.1,32,43,886/- and also deduction of interest on loan of borrowed

RAJEEV VASUDEVA,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1) , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: us, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

section 54F of the Act to the tune of Rs.3,83,55,102/- and remaining amount of Rs.2,58,11,318/- was duly declared as long-term capital gain by the assessee in the return of income. Apart from this, the assessee had declared income from salary, income from house property

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

house at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, purchased and acquired by Smt Alka Rajvansh W/o Shri Homi Rajvansh, in the name of her company M/s Mahanivesh Oil and Foods Pvt Ltd, against the consideration value of ₹ 1,35,00,000/- excluding stamp duty and Corpn. tax of ₹ 10,80,000/- is the Proceeds of Crime, which is likely to be concealed

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 263 of the Act directing the Ld. AO to pass assessment order afresh on the issue of incorrect claim of Page 5 ITA Nos.1868 & 1869/Del/2025 Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19 & 2020-21) house property as already envisaged hereinabove upon considering the complete facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the instant appeal before

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KENMORE VIKAS INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2012-13

section 14 and 22 of the I.T.Act, it would seem that any income from property (building and land appurtenant thereto) has to be taxed u/s 22. 6 DCIT vs. Kenmore Vikas India (P) Ltd. (ii) whether income earned from ownership vis-a-vis exploitation of the property in question can be treated as rental income, income from other sources

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

house property, income from capital gain and income from other sources. During the course of hearing the AR of the assessee submitted necessary details which have been examined and placed on records. Books of accounts have been verified on test check basis and returned back. Thereafter, the AO after seeking various explanations, framed the assessment

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

house property, income from capital gain and income from other sources. During the course of hearing the AR of the assessee submitted necessary details which have been examined and placed on records. Books of accounts have been verified on test check basis and returned back. Thereafter, the AO after seeking various explanations, framed the assessment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,NEW DELHI vs. MONNET ISPAT & ENERGY LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

House Courts, Delhi. 2. Facts of the case as stated in the present petition are that petitioner company is a private limited company incorporated as such under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. Present petition has been filed by Crl.Rev.P.536/2017 Page 2 of 18 the authorized representative of the company namely Nirmal Ramawat, Accounts Manager, who has been

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

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

M/S. MANJIT KAUR MEMORIAL PREMIER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

house property". It is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Calcutta High Court supra has held that income contemplated by the provisions of section 11 is the real income and not the income as assessed or assessable. Accordingly, while arriving at the rental income of the assessee-trust any expenditure incurred whatsoever related to the rental income

M/S. MANJEET KAUR MEMORIAL PREMIER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

house property". It is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Calcutta High Court supra has held that income contemplated by the provisions of section 11 is the real income and not the income as assessed or assessable. Accordingly, while arriving at the rental income of the assessee-trust any expenditure incurred whatsoever related to the rental income

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

M/S. TERA ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we allow ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishitera Estates Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, S-395, Greater Kailash, Parti-Ii, Range-16, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabct5729R (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 234B of the Act, which is not leviable on the facts of the appellant company.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of owners, colonizers, developers, promoters etc. The assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2006- 07 on 30.11.2006 of Rs. 3596255/-. The assessment