M/S Y.S. AND CO-OWNERS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ETC.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Section 26 of the n the definition of (building). s by relying on ITO, Mansa Vs. /- on account of investments for odowns was deleted. The CIT Assessing Officer in treating the as income of the AOP entering er sources and treating the plinth uilding’ and cannot be termed as rder in appeal before the ITAT, ctions whereafter the ITAT vide

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. M/S NHPC LTD

The appeals stand disposed of