DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

income of Rs. 118,25,81,300/- . The ld AO made following additions: - Sl. Particulars Amount No. i. Addition on account of suppressed GP 271573434 ii. Profit on unaccounted and unrecorded purchase and sales 88264030 iii. Peak investment on unaccounted and unrecorded purchase 140384392 iv. Depreciation

METROPOLIS HEALTHCARE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the claim of the deduction of dividend distribution tax made by the assessee in this additional ground is rejected

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

income on 29.11.2012 for Rs. 55,93,07,984/-. The ld AO noted that assessee has claimed additional depreciation of Rs. 23,33,715/- on the plant

METROPOLIS HEALTHCARE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the claim of the deduction of dividend distribution tax made by the assessee in this additional ground is rejected

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

income on 29.11.2012 for Rs. 55,93,07,984/-. The ld AO noted that assessee has claimed additional depreciation of Rs. 23,33,715/- on the plant

DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HALDIRAM SNACKS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

additional depreciation can be claimed in the next year. Reliance in this regard is placed on following judicial • Commissioner of Income

VIBRACOUSTIC INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT,SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmavibracoustic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit R-561, Shankar Road, Special Range-9 New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi - 110011

additional depreciation were not installed / added during the year under consideration but were added in earlier financial year. We find that identical issue arose before Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of The Pr. Commissioner of Income

VIBRACOUSTIC INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT,SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmavibracoustic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit R-561, Shankar Road, Special Range-9 New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi

additional depreciation were not installed / added during the year under consideration but were added in earlier financial year. We find that identical issue arose before Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of The Pr. Commissioner of Income

M/S. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

depreciation was duly certified by tax auditors assessee held allowable in the annexure – DI thereof; c) The appellant, in the return of income and computation of income for relevant assessment year disclosed and claimed aforesaid amount of additional

M/S. PEARL DRINKS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Additional income” as discussed above 3,37,59,400 Add: Depreciation disallowed 148555340 Excise Duty on Closing Stock of Raw 7836164 Material

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PEARL DRINKSLTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Additional income” as discussed above 3,37,59,400 Add: Depreciation disallowed 148555340 Excise Duty on Closing Stock of Raw 7836164 Material

EFACEC SWITCHGEAR INDIA PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH EFACEC INDIA PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 8(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaefacec Switchgear India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Efacec C&S Mv Circle 8(1), Components Pvt. Ltd. C.R.Building, I.P.Estate & Now Merged With Efacec India New Delhi -110002 Pvt. Ltd.) 4Th Floor, Rectangle-I, Commercial Complex, D-4 Distt. Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 Pan – Aacce4200H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by ACIT, Circle 8(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ld. Assessing officer or in short ‘Ld. AO’). 2. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal :- “The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in disallowing expenses on account of additional depreciation

SRF LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ADDL CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

income but same was claimed as an additional claim during the course of assessment proceedings. He submitted that additional claim of depreciation

METROPOLIS HEALTHCARE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the claim of the deduction of dividend distribution tax made by the assessee in this additional ground is rejected

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

Income at Rs.50,24,54,863/- by making disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.71,64,846/- . 2. The facts of the case

VEDANTA LTD (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LTD),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

additional depreciation amounting to Rs.17,12,04,096 under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act despite the fact that appellant had not claimed at all while filing its original return of income

M/S. BIKANERVALA FOODS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bikanervala Foods Pvt. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, A-28, Lawrence Road Circle-3(1), Room No. 390, Industrial Area, New Delhi C.R. Building, New Delhi Pan :Aaacb0611P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was issued and complied with. In the assessment completed on 21/03/2014 under section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of additional depreciation

SRF LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Srf Limited, Vs Acit, The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Unit No.236 & 237, Second Floor, New Delhi. Mayur Place, Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I Extn., Delhi-110091. Pan-Aaacs0206P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca, Shri R.K.Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Harish Dhamija, Adv. Respondent By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.11.2023 Order

additional depreciation @10% amounting to 29,51,16,052/- on the ground that such deduction has not been claimed by the appellant in its original or revised return of income

NALWA STEEL & POWER LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT,, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

income at Rs.10,16,78,149/- by making two disallowances i.e. disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.5,64,30,426/- and disallowance

PRASIDH FINCAP LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

Income Tax Act by the assessee on the gross value of fixed assets. We also find that there has been no addition to the value of fixed assets from 31.03.2003 to 31.03.2012. We find that depreciation

PRASIDH FINCAP LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

Income Tax Act by the assessee on the gross value of fixed assets. We also find that there has been no addition to the value of fixed assets from 31.03.2003 to 31.03.2012. We find that depreciation