RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

23-7-2023 is enclosed in Pages 316 to 318 of the Paper Book. The Learned AR submitted that no addition was made by the Learned AO in the assessment order on this issue since the Assessee had not claimed the same as application of income. Mr. Paramjit Gandhi was not even a related party in terms of section

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

C) 5895/2010 decided on 07.08.2014 wherein we passed the following order:- “In these circumstances, we find that as of no\f, the very basis of initiating the re-assessment proceedings by virtue of (he notice dated 02,02.2010 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not survive. Therefore, we arc disposing of this writ petition with

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

C) 5895/2010 decided on 07.08.2014 wherein we passed the following order:- “In these circumstances, we find that as of no\f, the very basis of initiating the re-assessment proceedings by virtue of (he notice dated 02,02.2010 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not survive. Therefore, we arc disposing of this writ petition with

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

depreciation, we observe that it was so decided because assessee failed to furnish relevant information before the Assessing Officer along with Audit Report. Facts of the present assessment year are different as Ld. AR sufficiently demonstrated that the details were very much available before Ld. AO and Assessing Officer has not taken any steps to verify the same

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

23,29,329/- on account of Profit on Sale/ Redemption of Investment. 2. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer {hereinafter referred to as “AO”} in denying benefit of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 {hereinafter referred to as “Act”}. 2.1 Without prejudice, on facts

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

23,29,329/- on account of Profit on Sale/ Redemption of Investment. 2. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer {hereinafter referred to as “AO”} in denying benefit of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 {hereinafter referred to as “Act”}. 2.1 Without prejudice, on facts

CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

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

10 of 31 during the year. Thus, depreciation would be available to an assessee only as long as the written down value of the block of assets remained positive. 15. By virtue of the Taxation Laws (Amendment & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1986, the definition of the expression “written down value” as provided under Section 43(6) of the Act was also

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation as allowed in the past. In the result, ground nos.2 and 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Apropos ground nos.6 and 7, ld. counsel pointed out that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 21.12.2006, filed revised computation of income claiming additional TDS of Rs.50,192/-. The certificates were also annexed to the said

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation as allowed in the past. In the result, ground nos.2 and 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Apropos ground nos.6 and 7, ld. counsel pointed out that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 21.12.2006, filed revised computation of income claiming additional TDS of Rs.50,192/-. The certificates were also annexed to the said

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation as allowed in the past. In the result, ground nos.2 and 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Apropos ground nos.6 and 7, ld. counsel pointed out that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 21.12.2006, filed revised computation of income claiming additional TDS of Rs.50,192/-. The certificates were also annexed to the said

THE ACIT.,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation as allowed in the past. In the result, ground nos.2 and 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Apropos ground nos.6 and 7, ld. counsel pointed out that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 21.12.2006, filed revised computation of income claiming additional TDS of Rs.50,192/-. The certificates were also annexed to the said

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

10. So far as the ground relating to depreciation is concerned, the CIT (Appeals) took note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI, (1993) 199 ITR 43 and held that in arriving at the real income of the trust, deduction for depreciation cannot be allowed if the capital expenditure incurred in acquiring the asset

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

23,38,731/-, thus showing additional income of `21,65,932/-. The AO ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED CASES Page 3 completed the assessment under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2008 after accepting the declared income by observing that, “After examination of the details filed and discussion with AR of the assessee the income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

23,38,731/-, thus showing additional income of `21,65,932/-. The AO ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED CASES Page 3 completed the assessment under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2008 after accepting the declared income by observing that, “After examination of the details filed and discussion with AR of the assessee the income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

23,38,731/-, thus showing additional income of `21,65,932/-. The AO ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED CASES Page 3 completed the assessment under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2008 after accepting the declared income by observing that, “After examination of the details filed and discussion with AR of the assessee the income

MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation and development rebate. The above claim was not accepted by the [TO and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. The Court noticed in the aforesaid case that the appellant had made the claim after pursuing the expert legal advice and the same was clearly based on cogent, legal ground and there

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

23. The detailed scope of the work as enumerated above which was undertaken by the assessee, it can safely be concluded that on the facts of the case, the assessee has worked 2015:DHC:2616-DB ITA No.2069/2010, 318/2014 & ITA No.320/2014 Page 9 as a developer and not merely as a work contractor. Accordingly, we do not find any merit

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

23. The detailed scope of the work as enumerated above which was undertaken by the assessee, it can safely be concluded that on the facts of the case, the assessee has worked 2015:DHC:2616-DB ITA No.2069/2010, 318/2014 & ITA No.320/2014 Page 9 as a developer and not merely as a work contractor. Accordingly, we do not find any merit