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

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2002-03

house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B’. The legislature did not make all the provisions of the Act, including section 92

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OMAXE BUILDHOME (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu Assessment Year : 2008-09 Deputy Cit, Vs. M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Central Circle-4, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, New Delhi. Kalkaji, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Vs. Deputy Cit, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, Central Circle-4, Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Properties f20J2} 206 Taxman 584/ 19 taxmann. Cam 316, which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us. A perusal of above Judgment, it clearly reveals that hon'able High Court has taken and interpreted the definition of housing project u/s 80HHA to arrived at the concept of composite housing

M/S. IDEAL HITECH ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house property’, the computation of notional income by invoking section 23(1)(a) of the Act by lower authorities is based on fundamental misconception and unsustainable. 2.1 That Ld. CIT(Appeals) and Ld. Assessing Officer have failed to appreciate that the assessee was 3 entitled to vacancy allowance and as such, income alternatively had to be computed under section

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

section 115JB at Rs.257,66,45,801.” 7. Ergo, AO has accepted that assessee’s income is liable for 100% deduction u/s 80IAB and has computed the income at ‘nil’. However, he has held that instead of income shown by the assessee under the head “income from house property”, the same is assessable under the head “profits & gains of 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

section 115JB at Rs.257,66,45,801.” 7. Ergo, AO has accepted that assessee’s income is liable for 100% deduction u/s 80IAB and has computed the income at ‘nil’. However, he has held that instead of income shown by the assessee under the head “income from house property”, the same is assessable under the head “profits & gains of 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

section 115JB at Rs.257,66,45,801.” 7. Ergo, AO has accepted that assessee’s income is liable for 100% deduction u/s 80IAB and has computed the income at ‘nil’. However, he has held that instead of income shown by the assessee under the head “income from house property”, the same is assessable under the head “profits & gains of business

ASHOO DECOR INDIA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiashoo Décor India, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 1, Streel No. 1, Range-33, New Delhi Anad Parbat Indl. Area, Delhi Pan:Aaifa8801D (Appellant) (Respondent)

house and has also given necessary details of work being done there such as supply, etc of aluminum glazing and ACP, the rejection of this contention of the assessee is Page 6 of 11 not proper. In fact the building is under furnishing itself shows that it is being used and occupied by the assessee for the purpose

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATBIR SINGH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri O.P.Kantacit, Satbir Singh, Circle-33(1), 4/73, Wea Krishna Vs. New Delhi Market, Karolbagh, New Delhi Pan:Aogps9991A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. Dr, Respondent By : Sh. Y.P. Rawala, Ca

house property" instead of Page 2 of 10 "income from other sources" in view of the decision in M K Dar vs CIT (1982) 138 ITR 801 (All.) and CIT vs DL Kanhere (1973) 92 ITR 535 (Bom.) where it was held that the lease income enjoyed from the letting out of the cinema building and the furniture, etc. would

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)

Section 22 of Income Tax Act. The claim of the appellant is that he became owner of 1/4th share of property in New Friends Colony on 3rd March, 2017 upon execution of the Will when the property was 'mutated' in the name of the appellant. It is held that the appellant became owner of 1/4th share of property

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)

Section 22 of Income Tax Act. The claim of the appellant is that he became owner of 1/4th share of property in New Friends Colony on 3rd March, 2017 upon execution of the Will when the property was 'mutated' in the name of the appellant. It is held that the appellant became owner of 1/4th share of property

DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), NEW DELHI vs. KANWAL MOHAN SINGH SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

property, profit from partnership firm M/s. Prime Banox, long term capital gain and income from other sources. He filed his return for AY 2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring income of Rs. 1,57,00,290/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found that the assessee sold his residential house

SAROJ ARORA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 59(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2013-14 Saroj Arora Ito B-85, Swasthya Vihar, Vs Ward- 59 (3) New Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aaepa0683R (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,437/- i.e. 50% of the above payments being the share of the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54 in respect of CWG Village property.” 15. Since the revenue is not in appeal before us the above findings of the CIT(A) has attained finality. 16. The solitary issue to be decided now whether the assessee is entitled

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)

Section 56 (2) (iii) of the Act.” 11. In light of the aforementioned findings of the Hon'ble High Court, we will now consider the facts of the case in hand. 12. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, vide show cause notice dated 17.12.2014, the assessee was asked to show causeas to why income offered to tax as “Income

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

Section 57 of the Act, namely, car insurance, interest on car loans and depreciation. The assessee also provided copies of agreements, entered into for lease of the vehicles, however, we noticed that the Assessing Officer restricted the depreciation to 15% only. The appendix where the rate of depreciation to be allowed on vehicles given on hire suggests that motor lorries

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ADARSH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaa.Y. 2012-13

92 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. Amit Goyal, CA & Sh. Nipun Jain, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-XXVII), New Delhi dated 09.06.2015 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13 and the Cross 1 Objection filed

ANDREY ANDREEV,MUMBAI vs. CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-(03), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2002/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Andrey Andreev, Vs Cit(Intl. Taxation)-03, C/O Sushil Budhia Associates, New Delhi Ca, 1103, Level 11, Universal Majestic, Behind Rbk International School, Ghatkopar Mankhurd, Link Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400043 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpa5288P Assessee By : Sh. Y. K. Kapur, Adv. & Sh. Bhushan Kapur, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2022

92,417/- • Exemption u/s 54 claimed – Rs.3,59,07,583/- • Taxable capital gains - Rs. Nil 3. Owing to the fact that the assessee has claimed exemption u/s 54 against purchase of residential property at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the ld. CIT set aside the order of the Assessing Officer on the grounds that the marginal note to Section 54F inserted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ATRIA PARTNER, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year : 2010-11 A.C.I.T., Circle 31(1) Vs. M/S. Atria Partners, New Delhi. 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. [Pan : Aahfa 1305 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.A. Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2016 Order Per L.P. Sahu: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.11.2013 Passed By The Learned Cit(A)-Xxvi, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On The Following Grounds :

92,600/- which was processed u/s. 143(1). Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny. 3. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee declared rental income of Rs.13,25,99,754/- under the head “house property” on which the assessee claimed 30% deduction amounting to Rs.3,97,79,926/- under section