COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 32(2) of the Act for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation to any subsequent year. The apex court in CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. [1966]59ITR555(SC) has held that unabsorbed depreciation of past years had to be added to depreciation of the current year and the aggregate unabsorbed and current year's depreciation

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Depreciation 2393 3 749 3145 Cairn U K Holdings Limited V DCIT ( International Taxation) New Delhi A Y 2007-08 P a g e | 34 Amortization 2242 -- 1620 3862 The segment assets and liabilities as at 31 December 2006 and capital expenditure for the year then ended are follows: Cairn India Capricorn Other Group 2006 Limited Energy Group Limited Group

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

2) of section 32. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Premchand Jute Mills Ltd. [1986] 56 CTR (Cal.) 225/[1987] 164 ITR 288 (Cal.) has observed that the assessee was held entitled to set off the unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the assets of the business carried out in earlier years against income from letting out such

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

2) of section 32. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Premchand Jute Mills Ltd. [1986] 56 CTR (Cal.) 225/[1987] 164 ITR 288 (Cal.) has observed that the assessee was held entitled to set off the unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the assets of the business carried out in earlier years against income from letting out such

DDIT (E), DELHI vs. M/S. ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation. 7. On the contrary the ld. AR contends that the Respondent Assessee is carrying out its objective of promotion of football sports at national and international level. Its activities are in nature of advancement of general public utility and will qualify as charitable purposes “in terms of definition contained in section 2

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from such customer. The said amendment also provided that contract for carrying out work shall not include contract

M/S DIGITAL RADIO (DELHI) BROADCASTING LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No 1316 &1317/Del/2011 and ITA

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm Andsh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. 2006-07 Digital Radio (Delhi) Broadcasting Ltd. V Acit C/O. O.P. Sapra & Associates, S Circle-10(1) C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7864B A.Y. 2006-07 Acit V Digital Radio (Delhi) Circle-10(1) S Broadcasting Ltd. New Delhi 401, Dakha House, 18/17, Wea Karol Bagh New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7864B A.Y. 2006-07 Digital Radio (Kolkata) V Acit Broadcasting Ltd. S Circle-10(1) C/O. O.P. Sapra & New Delhi Associates, C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7863G

depreciation / business loss as per law. 11. We take up the ground no 1 of appeal of assessee and revenue together as both are linked to the issue of allowability of license fee paid under phase- I. 12. Before us LD AR of the assessee submitted as under :- (i) That such license fee expenditure of Rs.26

M/S. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Acit, Circle-15(1), New Delhi Religare Finvest Ltd., D-3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan : Aafcs6801H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi, Dated 28.02.2013, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. The grounds no. 3 to 3.1 (wrongly mentioned as 2.3 in the grounds of appeal) are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. As far as ground no. 4 is concerned, the assessee has raised the issue relating to not taking on record Memorandum

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

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

2. Certain additions to the existing building at 24, Akbar Road have been made during the year. Since the building is on rent from Government of India and the ownership does not vest in AICC, the amount spent on additions has been charged as depreciation during the year. 3. Certain Committees have prepared their final accounts in the form

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

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

2. Certain additions to the existing building at 24, Akbar Road have been made during the year. Since the building is on rent from Government of India and the ownership does not vest in AICC, the amount spent on additions has been charged as depreciation during the year. 3. Certain Committees have prepared their final accounts in the form

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

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

119 (Del.), it has been held that before making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the onus to establish the nexus of the same with the exempt income, is on the revenue. In ―Wimco Seedlings Limited Vs. DCIT", 107 ITD 267 (Del.) (TM), it has been held that there can be no presumption that the assessee must have incurred

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

2. Certain additions to the existing building at 24, Akbar Road have been made during the year. Since the building is on rent from Government of India and the ownership does not vest in AICC, the amount spent on additions has been charged as depreciation during the year. 3. Certain Committees have prepared their final accounts in the form

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year as well

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, MORADABAD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year as well

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S JUBLIANT ORGANOSYS LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year as well

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation was admissible to the appellant only on a proportionate basis?‖ 2. Likewise, in ITA 134 of 2003, the following substantial questions of law were framed for determination: ―(i) Whether the ITAT is right in law in holding that the interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be calculated by giving benefit to the assessee

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 37 of the Act. 85. In so far as the carrying amount of inventory pledged as security, the same was specifically disclosed in the audited financial statements in “Note-6: Inventories” and more importantly there was no change in the amount vis-à-vis the preceding AY 20-21 (refer pg 27 of PB –filed before AO vide reply

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PETRONET LNG LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5230/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5231/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5232/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Petronet Lng Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of First Floor, World Trade Centre, Income Tax, Circle-19(2), Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Ita No. 4902/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4903/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4904/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Petronet Lng Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(2), First Floor, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp8148D Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2021

119 ITD 184 (CHENNAI), which gave a finding that in view of the specific provisions of Section 80-IA(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the profit from the eligible business for the purpose of determination of the quantum of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act has to be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward