Tally
coaching
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

DLF Limited Vs. JCIT | DCIT Vs. DLF Ltd.

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Delhi

Brief :
These are the cross-appeals filed by the assessee as well as The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7 (1)), New Delhi (the Learned Assessing Officer/AO) against the order of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, New Delhi (the learned that CIT A) dated 14 May 2015 for the assessment year 2010 – 11.

Citation :
ITA No. 4187/DEL/2015 ITA No.4793/DEL/2015

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

SH. K. N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

(Through Video Conferencing)

ITA No. 4187/DEL/2015

Assessment Year: 2010-11

DLF Limited

DLF Centre, (9th Floor) Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001 PAN No.AAACD3494N

Vs

JCIT

Range-10 404, C. R. Building

New Delhi

(APPELLANT)

(RESPONDENT)

ITA No.4793/DEL/2015

Assessment Year: 2010-11

DCIT

Circle –7 (1) New Delhi

Vs.

DLF Ltd.

Sansad Marg New Delhi

PAN No. AAACD3494N

(APPELLANT)

(RESPONDENT)

Appellant by

Sh. R. S. Singhvi, CA Sh. Satyajeet Goel , CA

Respondent by

Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

Date of hearing:

14/08/2020

Date of Pronouncement:

29/09/2020

ORDER

P ER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM:

1. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7 (1)), New Delhi (the Learned Assessing Officer/AO) against the order of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, New Delhi (the learned that CIT A) dated 14 May 2015 for assessment year 2010 – 11.

2. The assessee in its appeal in ITA number 4187/del/2015 has raised following grounds of appeal.

That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts in restricting the disallowance made by Assessing Officer u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to Rs.37,97,74,00/- when no disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(ii) is warranted as the appellant had itself disallowed / added back Rs. 19,15,695/- u/s 14A. [Page 101-115 of CIT(A)’s Order]

That learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts in confirming the net addition of Rs.7,69,038/- [i.e. after allowing standard deduction @ 30% on gross addition of Rs. 10,98,626/- which works out to Rs.3,29,588/-] made by the Assessing Officer on account of notional rent, whereas in fact the appellant has not received any rental income from these tenants. [Page 136-140 CIT(A)’s Order]

That learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts in not appreciating the fact that the taxable income means real income and not a fictional income.

3. That learned CIT(A) has grossly erred on the facts and in law in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer to the Rs.20,42,053/- on account of registration fee for the Gujarat and Karnataka windmills by treating the same as capital in nature. [Page 151-177 of CIT(A)’s Order]

4. That the appellant reserves its right to assail the same on such other ground or grounds as may be advanced at the time of hearing for which the appellant craves leave to amend, vary or add to the grounds hereinbefore appearing.

To read more in details, find the enclosed file

 

Guest
on 01 October 2020
Published in Income Tax
Views : 22
downloaded 12 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags