LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation @ 25% on golf course as „plant‟ stood allowed/ accepted in the past assessment years, i.e., 1998-99 to 2000-01 and succeeding assessment years, i.e., 2006-07 to 2009-10. 1.2 That the CIT (A)/assessing officer erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not appreciating that the classification of block

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation @ 25% on golf course as „plant‟ stood allowed/ accepted in the past assessment years, i.e., 1998-99 to 2000-01 and succeeding assessment years, i.e., 2006-07 to 2009-10. 1.2 That the CIT (A)/assessing officer erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not appreciating that the classification of block

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation @ 25% on golf course as „plant‟ stood allowed/ accepted in the past assessment years, i.e., 1998-99 to 2000-01 and succeeding assessment years, i.e., 2006-07 to 2009-10. 1.2 That the CIT (A)/assessing officer erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not appreciating that the classification of block

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation @ 25% on golf course as „plant‟ stood allowed/ accepted in the past assessment years, i.e., 1998-99 to 2000-01 and succeeding assessment years, i.e., 2006-07 to 2009-10. 1.2 That the CIT (A)/assessing officer erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not appreciating that the classification of block

M/S LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation @ 25% on golf course as „plant‟ stood allowed/ accepted in the past assessment years, i.e., 1998-99 to 2000-01 and succeeding assessment years, i.e., 2006-07 to 2009-10. 1.2 That the CIT (A)/assessing officer erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not appreciating that the classification of block

CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

block for the assessment year 1988-89 6,02,000 Depreciation for the assessment year 1988-89 at 331 /3% of Rs. 6,02,000 2,00,667 WDV for the assessment

COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/s. OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD.

depreciation on block assessment, the assets of Bhopal unit could not be segregated for the purpose of allowing depreciation and depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

depreciable asset and did not form part of the block of assets. We are concerned with the building, which had formed part of the block of assets and on which deprecation was claimed. The Assessing

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

depreciable asset and did not form part of the block of assets. We are concerned with the building, which had formed part of the block of assets and on which deprecation was claimed. The Assessing

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

depreciable asset and did not form part of the block of assets. We are concerned with the building, which had formed part of the block of assets and on which deprecation was claimed. The Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

depreciable asset and did not form part of the block of assets. We are concerned with the building, which had formed part of the block of assets and on which deprecation was claimed. The Assessing

KAY JAY AUTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.264/Del/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2005-06

block of assets under the head "intangible assets". The Assessing Officer allowed the claim for that assessment year by an order under section 143(3) dated 28.03.2006. The Tribunal then, proceeds to hold that when the Assessing Officer had to allow depreciation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

assessment years. Whether the assessee would still be entitled to depreciation as it has been claiming depreciation on entire 'block

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

assessment years. Whether the assessee would still be entitled to depreciation as it has been claiming depreciation on entire 'block

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

assessment years. Whether the assessee would still be entitled to depreciation as it has been claiming depreciation on entire 'block

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

assessment years. Whether the assessee would still be entitled to depreciation as it has been claiming depreciation on entire 'block

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

assessment years. Whether the assessee would still be entitled to depreciation as it has been claiming depreciation on entire 'block

M/S. METRO TYRES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

Assessment Years. Whether the assessee would still be entitled to depreciation as it has been claiming depreciation on entire „block