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

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

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

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

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

92 and other related provisions in 49 Chapter X. It must be noted that the income chargeable under the Act is divided into various heads under Section 14. The heads of income specified in that Section are:- 14. Heads of Income:- A - Salaries B - [Omitted by the Finance Act, 1988] C - Income from house property

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

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. Mr Singh is right

DELHI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 22 of the\nAct, three conditions are necessary for taxing the income under the\nhead \"income from house property” i.e. firstly, property consist of\nany building or land pertaining thereto; secondly, the assessee\nshould be owner of the property; and thirdly, the property should\nnot be used by the owner for the purpose of any business or\nprofession

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DELHI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal are partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 22 of the\nAct, three conditions are necessary for taxing the income under the\nhead \"income from house property\" i.e. firstly, property consist of\nany building or land pertaining thereto; secondly, the assessee\nshould be owner of the property; and thirdly, the property should\nnot be used by the owner for the purpose of any business or\nprofession

GOPAL DAS ESTATES & HOUSING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

house property Under Chapter IV-C of the Act. Being so the objection raised by the Assessing Officer that the deduction as claimed u/s 24(a) would be a duplication of the expenses is erroneous and unsustainable in law. It is only for this reason that in every year since FY 1995-96 to the last assessment

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the grounds restored to the file of the Tribunal by the Hon'ble High Court are decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12] & [Assessment Year: 2012-13]

section (4) is an inseparability arising from the intention of the parties. That intention may be ascertained by framing the following questions: Was it the intention in making the lease—and it matters not whether there is one lease or two, that is, separate leases in respect of the furniture and the building—that the two should be enjoyed together

SNEH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

property. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in taxing the capital gain u/s 45 read with section 54F(4) and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and in violation of principles or natural justice and without appreciating/considering the submissions and evidences placed on record by the assessee