VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

loss of Rs.1,19,81,580/- was set off against income form house property Rs.20,52,542/-, against income from

VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

loss of Rs.1,19,81,580/- was set off against income form house property Rs.20,52,542/-, against income from

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

house property Less : Property 25,43,443 Tax Less : Interest 73,13,20,464 Less : 623,17,72,906 Depreciation Less : Other Business Expenditure - Marketing 9,26,78,290 Service Charges - Land Lease 7,36,63,588 713,19,78,691 Rent Income from business -130,43,39,196 Gross total income After set-off with business loss

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

house property Less : Property 25,43,443 Tax Less : Interest 73,13,20,464 Less : 623,17,72,906 Depreciation Less : Other Business Expenditure - Marketing 9,26,78,290 Service Charges - Land Lease 7,36,63,588 713,19,78,691 Rent Income from business -130,43,39,196 Gross total income After set-off with business loss

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

house property Less : Property 25,43,443 Tax Less : Interest 73,13,20,464 Less : 623,17,72,906 Depreciation Less : Other Business Expenditure - Marketing 9,26,78,290 Service Charges - Land Lease 7,36,63,588 713,19,78,691 Rent Income from business -130,43,39,196 Gross total income After set-off with business loss

HEIDELBERG CEMENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaheidelberg Cement India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Infinity Circle-2, Towers, Dlf, Cybercity, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm2359J

set off of loss under the head capital gains overrides section 71 of the Act.” 3. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are challenging the action of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of depreciation. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business

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

set-out as under. REVISED AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOTIONAL ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (ALV) 14 ITA-790 to 792/Del/2015 “1.1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law learned CIT(A) erred in upholding an addition of Rs. 4,83,96,980/ (out of Rs.5 90,67,704/-) under the head 'income from house property

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

set-out as under. REVISED AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOTIONAL ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (ALV) 14 ITA-790 to 792/Del/2015 “1.1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law learned CIT(A) erred in upholding an addition of Rs. 4,83,96,980/ (out of Rs.5 90,67,704/-) under the head 'income from house property

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

set-out as under. REVISED AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOTIONAL ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (ALV) 14 ITA-790 to 792/Del/2015 “1.1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law learned CIT(A) erred in upholding an addition of Rs. 4,83,96,980/ (out of Rs.5 90,67,704/-) under the head 'income from house property

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

set and painting etc. In the cost of acquisition of the new property therefore after excluding cost of such items, he held that assessee has made an investment in the new property at ₹ 37,604,010/- instead of Rs 37,816,419/–. With respect to the construction cost of the property at 19 Kautilya Marg, New Delhi, he noted that

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

set and painting etc. In the cost of acquisition of the new property therefore after excluding cost of such items, he held that assessee has made an investment in the new property at ₹ 37,604,010/- instead of Rs 37,816,419/–. With respect to the construction cost of the property at 19 Kautilya Marg, New Delhi, he noted that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

set and painting etc. In the cost of acquisition of the new property therefore after excluding cost of such items, he held that assessee has made an investment in the new property at ₹ 37,604,010/- instead of Rs 37,816,419/–. With respect to the construction cost of the property at 19 Kautilya Marg, New Delhi, he noted that

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

House Property” as determined by the authorities below. Consequently the AO is directed to delete the addition on this issue and re-compute the liability. Coming to the 2nd addition on account of not allowing 9. the claim of set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation losses

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

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

house\nproperty and income from other sources. Ld. AR submits that aforesaid judgment of\nHon'ble Supreme Court has been discussed and distinguished by the apex court in\nthe case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, Central-III, Tamil\nNadu [2015] 56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconcluded that the question of identifying the income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CETRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

house\nproperty and income from other sources. Ld. AR submits that aforesaid judgment of\nHon'ble Supreme Court has been discussed and distinguished by the apex court in\nthe case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, Central-III, Tamil\nNadu [2015] 56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconcluded that the question of identifying the income

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

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

house\nproperty and income from other sources. Ld. AR submits that aforesaid judgment of\nHon'ble Supreme Court has been discussed and distinguished by the apex court in\nthe case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, Central-III, Tamil\nNadu [2015] 56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconcluded that the question of identifying the income

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

loss of Rs.103.82\nCrores under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession',\nincome of Rs.782.46 Crores under the head 'Income from house property'\nand income of Rs.21.82 Crores under the head 'Income from other\nsources'.\n2.\nWith regards to the 'Income from house property', income of Rs.282.46\nCrores was claimed after deducting the following

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

loss of Rs.103.82\nCrores under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession',\nincome of Rs.782.46 Crores under the head 'Income from house property'\nand income of Rs.21.82 Crores under the head 'Income from other\nsources'.\nWith regards to the 'Income from house property', income of Rs.282.46\nCrores was claimed after deducting the following