← All Phrases

“block of assets”

DepreciationSection 2(11)Section 2(11)848 judgments

The decision most relied on for block of assets is CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (383 ITR 217), cited in 203 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on block of assets

CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
383 ITR 217 · 2016 · Supreme Court
203
citing judgments

Subsidies and excise duty refunds that are accounted for in the Profit and Loss account are revenue in nature, form part of business income, and are eligible for deductions under Section 80IB/80IC. Such receipts cannot be reduced from the block of assets for depreciation calculation.

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
341 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
108
citing judgments

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

CIT, Panji v. Dempo Company Limited
74 Taxmann.com 15 · 2016 · Supreme Court
62
citing judgments

The 20% tax rate under Section 112 applies to capital gains arising from the transfer of a depreciable asset, even if it is deemed a short-term capital gain under Section 50, provided the asset was held for more than 36 months. The fiction created by Section 50 for treating such gains as short-term does not alter the long-term nature of the asset for applying the tax rate under Section 112.

CIT v. Raj Pal Bhatia
333 ITR 315 · 2011 · High Court
54
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search operation is not considered "books of account," "documents," or "assets found or seized" for the purpose of initiating search assessments under Chapter XIVB (e.g., Section 158BD or 153C). Such a statement is created during the search and cannot solely form the basis for assessment without other incriminating material found.

Sharp Business System v. CIT
254 CTR 233 · 2012 · High Court
50
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on a non-compete fee as it constitutes an intangible asset, even if the right acquired cannot be transferred, provided it is treated as part of a block of assets.

341 ITR 467 (Del) (3) ACIT v. S.K. Patel Family Trust
38 SOT 208 · 2010 · ITAT
34
citing judgments

Depreciation on a building used for business purposes should be allowed following the rule of consistency if it was allowed in earlier assessment orders and the Assessing Officer raised no doubts about its use.

(1) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd.
187 Taxmann 111 · 2010 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Depreciation must be allowed on the entire block of assets as defined in Section 2(11) of the Income-tax Act, and individual assets of each unit cannot be considered separately for this purpose.

60 Taxman 412 (SC) II. DIT v. HSBC Asset Management (I)(P) Ltd.
47 Taxmann.com 286 · 2014 · High Court
23
citing judgments

Depreciation on an asset forming part of a block of assets must be allowed in subsequent years if it was allowed in an earlier year. The opening written down value in a year cannot be disputed if it was correctly carried forward.

Judgments citing block of assets

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. It evident, assessee's claim of depreciation on the opening WDV of block of assets has been disallowed simply for the reason that similar claim made by the assessee in preceding assessment years has been disallowed. As brought to our notice

Anuj Saxena Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1542/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi, Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. Alankrutha, D.R
Section 133Section 143Section 144Section 68

plant and machinery and further sum of Rs.5,90,392/- towards furniture and fixture. This was the addition made to the block of assets during the year. Naturally, the assessee claimed depreciation thereon during the year against the income offered. The learned Assessing Officer added the total income ... Rs.5,90,392/-. The assessee, during the course of appellate proceedings, has submitted the tax audit report, wherein the above addition to the block of assets has been made. The assessee has claimed depreciation on that assets of Rs.65,520/-. Therefore, in nutshell, the assessee has claimed depreciation

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharti Realty Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9228/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargdcit Vs. Bharti Realty Holdings Ltd. Circle – 4(2) 2, Worldmark Asset-8, New Delhi Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi-37 Pan No. Aacct 0180 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Bhalla, C.A. Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023

Section 43(6)Section 43(6)(c)

erred in deleting the disallowance made on account of depreciation of Rs.6,20,107/- even through the block of assets ceased to exist.” DCIT vs. Bharti Realty Holdings Ltd. 2 Ground No.1 of Revenue for A.Y. 2016-17 3. Apropos Ground No.1, the Learned CIT-D.R. submitted that ... account of disallowance of short- term capital loss on sale of assets. During the year, the appellant sold 2 blocks of assets and part of 3 block of assets to its sister concern. Sale price of two blocks resulted in Nil WDV (no depreciation was claimed) and also resulted

DCIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Armstrong Energy Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, in view of above appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 1941/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit –6(1) (1), R. No. 502, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Armstrong Energy Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, Militia Apartment, Mathar Pakhadi Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400 030 Pan – Aafca3807R ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Raghuveer Madanappa, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Saboo, Ld. AR
Section 10(38)Section 250

justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,04,00,869/- being depreciation claimed by the assessee on its block of assets and plant and machinery, when there is no business activity?. 2. The Appellant craves leaves to amend or alter any ground or to submit additional new ground which

Repro Auto Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 21(2), New Delhi

ITA 2041/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshrepro Auto Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 177, W-7 Lane, Sainik Farms, Ward-21(2), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccr6510R Assessee By : Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 48Section 50

invoked in case of a distress sale; (b) in not considering and deciding upon the plea that the written down value of the block of assets in respect of buildings at the beginning of the previous year as provided in section

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 1113/M/2022 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. Dcit 2(3)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Icic Bank Towers, North East Wing, Ground Floor, Bandra Room No. 552, Maharishi Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Karve Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K. C. Selvamani, DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 32

erred in disallowing the amount of ₹ 452,46,93,899 being depreciation claimed on the WDV as on April 1, 2012 on the block of assets in the nature of Goodwill/intangible rights acquired by the Appellant on merger with the Bank of Rajasthan Limited and Anagram Finance Limited. 03. Brief ... planning mechanism to either of them. He further stated that depreciation is to be computed on actual cost/written down value of the block of assets in accordance with section 43 of the act. He held that in respect of a capital A.Y.2015-16 ICICI BANK LTD asset transferred by the amalgamating

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 489/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264ASection 40

ground that assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate its claim. As there was discrepancy in the net block of assets as per audited balance sheet dated M/s. Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd. 31.03.2007 which was Rs. 6.69 crores and the opening balance ... crores. The discrepancy of Rs. 9.43 crore in the valuation of block of assets was not justified by the assessee by cogent evidences neither before the lower authorities nor before us. We, therefore, remand this issue back to the file of the ld. A.O. to provide the assessee with

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1514/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264ASection 40

ground that assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate its claim. As there was discrepancy in the net block of assets as per audited balance sheet dated M/s. Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd. 31.03.2007 which was Rs. 6.69 crores and the opening balance ... crores. The discrepancy of Rs. 9.43 crore in the valuation of block of assets was not justified by the assessee by cogent evidences neither before the lower authorities nor before us. We, therefore, remand this issue back to the file of the ld. A.O. to provide the assessee with

The ACIT - 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 1777/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR
Section 143Section 32

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the concept of "block of assets", the user must be satisfied at the time the asset enters the block of assets and thereafter, the individual assets lose their identity.” 8. The learned ... appreciating that under section 32 of the Act, depreciation is required to be computed on the opening written down value of the 'block of asset' and once an asset has entered the block, depreciation under section 32 cannot be denied. 2.5 The learned CIT(A) also erred in not appreciating

Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ACIT-14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 1620/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR
Section 143Section 32

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the concept of "block of assets", the user must be satisfied at the time the asset enters the block of assets and thereafter, the individual assets lose their identity.” 8. The learned ... appreciating that under section 32 of the Act, depreciation is required to be computed on the opening written down value of the 'block of asset' and once an asset has entered the block, depreciation under section 32 cannot be denied. 2.5 The learned CIT(A) also erred in not appreciating

Pfizer Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 3736/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR
Section 143Section 32

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the concept of "block of assets", the user must be satisfied at the time the asset enters the block of assets and thereafter, the individual assets lose their identity.” 8. The learned ... appreciating that under section 32 of the Act, depreciation is required to be computed on the opening written down value of the 'block of asset' and once an asset has entered the block, depreciation under section 32 cannot be denied. 2.5 The learned CIT(A) also erred in not appreciating

DCIT - 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 3694/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR
Section 143Section 32

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the concept of "block of assets", the user must be satisfied at the time the asset enters the block of assets and thereafter, the individual assets lose their identity.” 8. The learned ... appreciating that under section 32 of the Act, depreciation is required to be computed on the opening written down value of the 'block of asset' and once an asset has entered the block, depreciation under section 32 cannot be denied. 2.5 The learned CIT(A) also erred in not appreciating

Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2132/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT
Section 32Section 35D

depreciation is allowable on goodwill acquired during amalgamation. 1.5 As per section 32(1) of the Act 'depreciation', in the case of any block of assets, is to be computed on the written down value. According to Explanation 2 of section 32(1) "written down value of the block ... deductible in determining the written down value for the purposes of the said clause (vi); (c) in the case of any block of assets,- (i) in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, the aggregate of the written down

ACIT - 14(2) (2), Mumbai vs. Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2108/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT
Section 32Section 35D

depreciation is allowable on goodwill acquired during amalgamation. 1.5 As per section 32(1) of the Act 'depreciation', in the case of any block of assets, is to be computed on the written down value. According to Explanation 2 of section 32(1) "written down value of the block ... deductible in determining the written down value for the purposes of the said clause (vi); (c) in the case of any block of assets,- (i) in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, the aggregate of the written down

Ashwani Kumar Sehgal, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer, Katni

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 46/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleashwani Kumar Sehgal Vs. Ito-1. M/S. Sehgal Industries, Katni-483501, Madhav Nagar Gate, Madhyapradesh. Katni-483501, Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ajgps0132E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sapanusrethe, Advocate.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shivkumar. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi /Cit(A) A Passed U/Sec 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.SapanUsrethe, Advocate.ARFor Respondent: Shri.ShivKumar. Sr. DR
Section 154

appellant at the rate of 30% without appreciating that in earlier and subsequent years deprecation was duly allowed as a part of Block of asset and merely on presumption it cannot be disallowed 5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in upholding the order of learned ... confirming the disallowance of excess depreciation of Rs. 89,108/- where the assessee has claimed the depreciation @ 30% on the WDV of gross block of assets being carry forward from the earlier years and no adjustments are permitted. We find as per the Audited profit and loss account placed

M.K. Realtrade Pvt. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3584/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bholeji Infratrade Pvt. Dcit Ltd. (Merged With M/S. Vs Central Circle-Ii Akriti Realtech Ltd. Shop Faridabad No.E-40, Nehru Ground, Faridabad Pan No.Aaccb9666L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. M. K. Realtrade Pvt. Dcit Ltd. Rra Taxindia, D-28, Vs Central Circle-Ii South Extension, Part-1, Faridabad New Delhi Pan No.Aabcj8784C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Perfect Realtech P. Ltd. Dcit Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Vs Central Circle-Ii Extension, Part-1, Faridabad New Delhi Pan No.Aaecp0314K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

A.Y.2014-15. Since the assessment of the captioned appeals pertains to A.Y.2008-09 framed u/s.153C of the Act would be outside the purview of the block of assets of 6 years. As mentioned here in above. Therefore, the assessment so framed does not have any legal entity and deserve to be quashed

Perfect Realtech P.Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3583/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bholeji Infratrade Pvt. Dcit Ltd. (Merged With M/S. Vs Central Circle-Ii Akriti Realtech Ltd. Shop Faridabad No.E-40, Nehru Ground, Faridabad Pan No.Aaccb9666L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. M. K. Realtrade Pvt. Dcit Ltd. Rra Taxindia, D-28, Vs Central Circle-Ii South Extension, Part-1, Faridabad New Delhi Pan No.Aabcj8784C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Perfect Realtech P. Ltd. Dcit Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Vs Central Circle-Ii Extension, Part-1, Faridabad New Delhi Pan No.Aaecp0314K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

A.Y.2014-15. Since the assessment of the captioned appeals pertains to A.Y.2008-09 framed u/s.153C of the Act would be outside the purview of the block of assets of 6 years. As mentioned here in above. Therefore, the assessment so framed does not have any legal entity and deserve to be quashed

Daksh Developers Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3582/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bholeji Infratrade Pvt. Dcit Ltd. (Merged With M/S. Vs Central Circle-Ii Akriti Realtech Ltd. Shop Faridabad No.E-40, Nehru Ground, Faridabad Pan No.Aaccb9666L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. M. K. Realtrade Pvt. Dcit Ltd. Rra Taxindia, D-28, Vs Central Circle-Ii South Extension, Part-1, Faridabad New Delhi Pan No.Aabcj8784C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Perfect Realtech P. Ltd. Dcit Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Vs Central Circle-Ii Extension, Part-1, Faridabad New Delhi Pan No.Aaecp0314K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

A.Y.2014-15. Since the assessment of the captioned appeals pertains to A.Y.2008-09 framed u/s.153C of the Act would be outside the purview of the block of assets of 6 years. As mentioned here in above. Therefore, the assessment so framed does not have any legal entity and deserve to be quashed

Swami Foods Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3581/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bholeji Infratrade Pvt. Dcit Ltd. (Merged With M/S. Vs Central Circle-Ii Akriti Realtech Ltd. Shop Faridabad No.E-40, Nehru Ground, Faridabad Pan No.Aaccb9666L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. M. K. Realtrade Pvt. Dcit Ltd. Rra Taxindia, D-28, Vs Central Circle-Ii South Extension, Part-1, Faridabad New Delhi Pan No.Aabcj8784C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Perfect Realtech P. Ltd. Dcit Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Vs Central Circle-Ii Extension, Part-1, Faridabad New Delhi Pan No.Aaecp0314K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

A.Y.2014-15. Since the assessment of the captioned appeals pertains to A.Y.2008-09 framed u/s.153C of the Act would be outside the purview of the block of assets of 6 years. As mentioned here in above. Therefore, the assessment so framed does not have any legal entity and deserve to be quashed

Arambh Tradecon Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3580/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bholeji Infratrade Pvt. Dcit Ltd. (Merged With M/S. Vs Central Circle-Ii Akriti Realtech Ltd. Shop Faridabad No.E-40, Nehru Ground, Faridabad Pan No.Aaccb9666L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. M. K. Realtrade Pvt. Dcit Ltd. Rra Taxindia, D-28, Vs Central Circle-Ii South Extension, Part-1, Faridabad New Delhi Pan No.Aabcj8784C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Perfect Realtech P. Ltd. Dcit Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Vs Central Circle-Ii Extension, Part-1, Faridabad New Delhi Pan No.Aaecp0314K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

A.Y.2014-15. Since the assessment of the captioned appeals pertains to A.Y.2008-09 framed u/s.153C of the Act would be outside the purview of the block of assets of 6 years. As mentioned here in above. Therefore, the assessment so framed does not have any legal entity and deserve to be quashed