DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

capital\nexpenditure, is allowable u/s 35D of the Act. Appeal of the\nassessee on this ground is allowed.\"\nIn view of the fact that the exactly similar issue has already been dealt\nin detail by Hon'ble ITAT, as mentioned above, I agree with the\ndecision taken by ITAT and hence the claim of appellant is accepted.\nIn the result

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

capital\nexpenditure, is allowable u/s 35D of the Act. Appeal of the\nassessee on this ground is allowed.\"\nIn view of the fact that the exactly similar issue has already been dealt\nin detail by Hon'ble ITAT as mentioned above, I agree with the\ndecision taken by ITAT and hence the claim of appellant is accepted.\nIn the result

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Accounting Standards (AS) 2 and (AS) 10. 16.6 It is not disputed that the assessee is maintaining the accounts based on a mercantile system. Under sub- section (1) of section 145 of the Act the assessee's income which is chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Accounting Standards (AS) 2 and (AS) 10. 16.6 It is not disputed that the assessee is maintaining the accounts based on a mercantile system. Under sub- section (1) of section 145 of the Act the assessee's income which is chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Accounting Standards (AS) 2 and (AS) 10. 16.6 It is not disputed that the assessee is maintaining the accounts based on a mercantile system. Under sub- section (1) of section 145 of the Act the assessee's income which is chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Accounting Standards (AS) 2 and (AS) 10. 16.6 It is not disputed that the assessee is maintaining the accounts based on a mercantile system. Under sub- section (1) of section 145 of the Act the assessee's income which is chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Accounting Standards (AS) 2 and (AS) 10. 16.6 It is not disputed that the assessee is maintaining the accounts based on a mercantile system. Under sub- section (1) of section 145 of the Act the assessee's income which is chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S HUDCO LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" as the ITA No. 3262/Del/2015 (AY: 2011-12) ITA Nos. 3904 &3905/Del/2015 HUDCO mixed system of accounting has lost statutory mandate w.e.f. AY 1989-90 in view of the amendment to section 145 of 1.T. Act. Thus, the Assessee was in clear error of law in changing the method

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" as the ITA No. 3262/Del/2015 (AY: 2011-12) ITA Nos. 3904 &3905/Del/2015 HUDCO mixed system of accounting has lost statutory mandate w.e.f. AY 1989-90 in view of the amendment to section 145 of 1.T. Act. Thus, the Assessee was in clear error of law in changing the method

IHHR HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 04, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usm/S. Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl. Cit, 32/7, Samalka, Nh 8, Range – 04, New Delhi – 110 037. New Delhi. (Pan : Aaaci9385B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 Date Of Order : 04.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-35, New Delhi Dated 13.02.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That The Revenue Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making Disallowance Of ‘Project Pending Capitalization Written Off’ Expenses, Amounting To Rs.7,71,40,000/- & Treating These Expenses To Be Of Capital Nature. 2. That The Revenue Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing Interest Of Rs.5,40,62,940/- U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (Revised Ground). 3. That The Revenue Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs.9,61,305/- On Account Of Claim Of Roc Fee Under Section 35D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 .”

35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 .” 3. Ground No.3 is not pressed, hence dismissed as not pressed. 4. As regards Ground No.1 i.e. disallowance of project pending capitalization written off expenses amounting to Rs.7,71,40,000/- and treating these expenses to be of capital nature, during the relevant assessment year, the assessee company has written off project