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

depreciation of Rs.17,12,04,096/- under clause (iia) read with clause (ii) of section 32(1) of the Act. Consequently, Grounds No. 4 and 4.1 are determined against the taxpayer. GROUNDS NO. 5 and 5.1 29. The taxpayer has challenged the adjustment of Rs.180,40,27,029/- made by the AO to the peak profit under section 115

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LTD

Section 115 JB of the Act. While doing so, various additions were made by the Assessing Officer including the following: - a. In so far the claim of depreciation

M/S GIAN SAGAR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Gian Sagar Educational Vs. Dcit & Charitable Trust, Central Circle-29, Sco 10-110, Sector 43B, New Delhi Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaatg5827B

115-BBC of the Act to prove the 'genuineness' of voluntary contributions received by the appellant-trust. M/s. Gian Sagar Educational and Charitable Trust 5. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that mere non-receipt of response to notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act would not ipso-facto mean that the voluntary contributions

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S NHPC LTD.,, FARIDABAD

In the result and appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

115 JB of the Act, while confirming the disallowance on account of deduction under section 80 IA of the Act to the tune of Rs.3,31,92,441/-, disallowance claimed by the assessee in respect of Teesta-V power station to the tune of Rs. 2, 52, 93, 963/- on account of depreciation

INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET AX

depreciation on account of revaluation of the fixed assets by increasing the revaluation reserve in the relevant assessment year 2000-2001 and consequently, the same definitely has the effect of reducing the net profit for the said Assessment Year. Looking to the scheme of the provision of Section 115

INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

depreciation on account of revaluation of the fixed assets by increasing the revaluation reserve in the relevant assessment year 2000-2001 and consequently, the same definitely has the effect of reducing the net profit for the said Assessment Year. Looking to the scheme of the provision of Section 115

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation and income as per section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) at Rs. 43, 25, 68, 392/-. 3. During

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

115-O (4) & (5) are absent in Chapter 23. XII-EA for a reason that the trustee is taxed as a representative assessee and since his liability is dependent on the liability of beneficiary such provisions are contrary to the taxation of trust under the scheme of the Act. In view of the above, it is submitted that the income

M/S DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is partly allowed

115 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 was in the nature of tax on land and, thus, within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. Aggrieved by the decision of the Madras High Court, the Assessee as well as other persons approached the Supreme Court by filing special leave petitions and writ petitions. These petitions were allowed by a Constitution

M/S DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is partly allowed

115 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 was in the nature of tax on land and, thus, within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. Aggrieved by the decision of the Madras High Court, the Assessee as well as other persons approached the Supreme Court by filing special leave petitions and writ petitions. These petitions were allowed by a Constitution

M/S DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is partly allowed

115 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 was in the nature of tax on land and, thus, within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. Aggrieved by the decision of the Madras High Court, the Assessee as well as other persons approached the Supreme Court by filing special leave petitions and writ petitions. These petitions were allowed by a Constitution

VEDANTA LTD ,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 37 of the act may be prospective, but at the same time, assessee had to justify the claim of expenditure being spent on CSR. Details mentioned hereinabove do not justify the claim of expenditure on account of commercial expediency. Considering the claim from all possible angles, we do not find any merit in such claim of expenditure. Disallowance

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI vs. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,HARYANA vs. DCIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 115JB of the Act. Further, the aforesaid issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the other decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2004-05 in ITA No. 3319/Del/2008. Accordingly, this additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 61. Insofar as, the issue relating to additional coal levy