Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Dlf Ltd
High Court
05 Sep 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Dlf Ltd
Date of order
05 Sep 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Dlf Ltd, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI23
+ ITA No. 264/2010
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
..... Appellant
Through:Mr. Sanjay Kumar & Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Stnading Counsel for the Revenue
versus
DLF LTD
..... Respondent
Through:Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha &, Ms. Roopali Gupta, Advocates
CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
%
O R D E R05.09.2017
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against an order dated 9[th] April 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.93/Del/2008 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2004-2005.
2. While admitting this appeal on 30[th] November 2011, the Court framed the following question of law for consideration:
“Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wherein the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has held that the income received from the property, not owned by the assessee, would fall under the head “income from house property” and not under “income from other sources.”
3. The question urged by the Revenue concerns the income earned by the Assessee from the property, ‘DLF Centre’, which is owned by it.
ITA 264/2010 Page 1 of 2
4. Having perused the ground raised by the Revenue in this appeal against the findings of the ITAT in the impugned order, the Court is of the view that the question framed for consideration by the order dated 30[th] November 2011 should be reframed as under:
“Whether the ITAT was correct in affirming the order of the CIT (A) that the income earned by the Assessee from DLF Centre should be treated as income from house property and not income from other sources?”
5. In view of the order passed by this Court today in ITA No. 407/2009, the aforementioned question is answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 05, 2017 rd
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
ITA 264/2010 Page 2 of 2
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.