Rajesh Saluja v. DCIT - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Dy. CIT v. Narendra Gehlaut 2023 TaxPub(DT) 5009 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED ITO v. Vikram Sadanand Hoskote 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1406 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED CIT v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. 1998 TaxPub(DT) 1068 (SC)
REFERRED Smt. Durgadevi v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1998 TaxPub(DT) 1068 (MP-HC)
REFERRED M.L.G. Enterprises v. CIT 1987 TaxPub(DT) 0800 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Mithlesh Kumari 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0422 (Del-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 809 (Del-Trib) IN THE ITAT DELHI N.K.BILLAIYA, A.M. & YOGESH KUMAR U.S., J.M. Rajesh Saluja v. DCIT ITA No. 5190/Del/2019 15 February, 2024 Appellant by: Mal ik Girish, CA Respondent by: Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR ORDER *Yogesh Kumar U.S., J.M.* This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 32, New Delhi [Ld. CIT(A), for short], dated 27-3-2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds of the assessee are as under :- 1. That the Assessment order passed under section 143(3) is illegal, bad in law. The Commission (Appeals) has erred in upholding the same. 2. That the Assessing officer has erred in computing the total income at Rs. 2,47,09,790 as against the declared income at Rs. 1,30,66,270, and make the addition of Rs. 1,16,43,521 which is illegal, unjust, highly excessive and is not based on any material on record. 3. That the Assessing officer has erred in disallowing the interest paid on housing loan as cost of acquisition and cost of improvement. 4. That the Assessing officer has erred in disallowing the amount of Rs. 94,17,082 which is interest paid on housing loan and indexed cost of the same is Rs. 1,16,43,521. 5. That the Assessing officer has wrongly interpreted the judgment ofCIT v. Mithlesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Del) : 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0422 (Del-HC). 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in disallowing the same on the basis of the judgment passed in the case of CIT v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 285 (SC) : 1998 TaxPub(DT) 1068 (SC), which is also in favor of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also wrongly interpreted the judgment. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 809 (Del-Trib)

IN THE ITAT DELHI

N.K.BILLAIYA, A.M. & YOGESH KUMAR U.S., J.M.

Rajesh Saluja v. DCIT

ITA No. 5190/Del/2019

15 February, 2024

Appellant by: Mal ik Girish, CA

Respondent by: Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

ORDER

Yogesh Kumar U.S., J.M.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 32, New Delhi [Ld. CIT(A), for short], dated 27-3-2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2. Grounds of the assessee are as under :-

1. That the Assessment order passed under section 143(3) is illegal, bad in law. The Commission (Appeals) has erred in upholding the same.

2. That the Assessing officer has erred in computing the total income at Rs. 2,47,09,790 as against the declared income at Rs. 1,30,66,270, and make the addition of Rs. 1,16,43,521 which is illegal, unjust, highly excessive and is not based on any material on record.

3. That the Assessing officer has erred in disallowing the interest paid on housing loan as cost of acquisition and cost of improvement.

4. That the Assessing officer has erred in disallowing the amount of Rs. 94,17,082 which is interest paid on housing loan and indexed cost of the same is Rs. 1,16,43,521.

5. That the Assessing officer has wrongly interpreted the judgment ofCIT v. Mithlesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Del) : 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0422 (Del-HC).

6. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in disallowing the same on the basis of the judgment passed in the case of CIT v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 285 (SC) : 1998 TaxPub(DT) 1068 (SC), which is also in favor of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also wrongly interpreted the judgment.