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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 10 of the Act that where a reference,\nunder the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143, has been made on or before\nthe 31st March, 2022 by the Assessing Officer for the contravention of certain\nprovisions of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act, such references shall be dealt with\nin the manner provided under

DABUR INDIA LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: We Consider The Submissions Made In Support Of The Appeal The Following Facts Require To Be Noted:- 2.1 The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Herbal Products & Cosmetics. On 30.11.2000 Assessee Filed Its Return For Assessment Year 2000-01 Wherein, It Declared An Income Of Rs 12,15,25,093/-. On 10.5.2001 The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Act As The Returned Income. However, Notices Were Issued Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. 2.2 In Response To The Aforesaid Notices, Hearing Was Attended By An Authorized Representative Before The Assessing Officer. 2008:Dhc:2521

depreciation allowance under Section 32 will have to be deducted in arriving at the 2008:DHC:2521 ITA No. 579-07 Page 18 of 25 „profits and gains‟ of business derived by an Assessee, from an industrial undertaking specified under Section 80-IB or export business under Section 80 HHC. 12

AREVA T & D INDIA LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and

depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets or know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the predecessor and the successor in the case of succession referred to in [clause (xiii), Clause (xiiib) and Clause (xiv)] of Section 47 or Section

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation on same assets as per computation of income of assessee. 3. That the ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing caution money for which assessee could not furnish details.” 3. The respondent assessee is a society registered under section 12

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED

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

12. In the case of Haryana Hotels (supra), the question for consideration was same as is before us in the present case. Referring to various decisions of different Courts it was held as under:- ITA No. 164/2008 Page 9 of 13 “Under Section 32(2) of the Act, the unabsorbed depreciation

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INSTITUTE OF MARKETING & MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

12 of the Act ignoring the provision of Section 13(1) which provide that even if there is a single instance of violation of Section 13(1), the trust will lose the exemption in respect of entire income. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INSTITUTE OF MARKETING & MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

12 of the Act ignoring the provision of Section 13(1) which provide that even if there is a single instance of violation of Section 13(1), the trust will lose the exemption in respect of entire income. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing

PITNEY BOWES INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 32(1)(ii)......." 12. It is, therefore, apparent that the ruling in Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. (supra) was concerned with an extremely limited controversy, i.e. depreciability

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation of Rs.2,63,24,271/- for assessment year 2007-08 and identically the disallowances were made in all three subsequent assessment years. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). The ld. CIT (Appeals) came to the conclusion that assessee is wrongly claiming deduction of exemption under Section 11 and 12

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation of Rs.2,63,24,271/- for assessment year 2007-08 and identically the disallowances were made in all three subsequent assessment years. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). The ld. CIT (Appeals) came to the conclusion that assessee is wrongly claiming deduction of exemption under Section 11 and 12

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation of Rs.2,63,24,271/- for assessment year 2007-08 and identically the disallowances were made in all three subsequent assessment years. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). The ld. CIT (Appeals) came to the conclusion that assessee is wrongly claiming deduction of exemption under Section 11 and 12

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation of Rs.2,63,24,271/- for assessment year 2007-08 and identically the disallowances were made in all three subsequent assessment years. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). The ld. CIT (Appeals) came to the conclusion that assessee is wrongly claiming deduction of exemption under Section 11 and 12

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation of Rs.2,63,24,271/- for assessment year 2007-08 and identically the disallowances were made in all three subsequent assessment years. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). The ld. CIT (Appeals) came to the conclusion that assessee is wrongly claiming deduction of exemption under Section 11 and 12

GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

depreciation under that section. 43. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court from para 12 to 15 are as under

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 11 & 12 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in computing the income of assessee in the status of ‘AOP’ instead of ‘charitable

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 11 & 12 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in computing the income of assessee in the status of ‘AOP’ instead of ‘charitable

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 11 & 12 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in computing the income of assessee in the status of ‘AOP’ instead of ‘charitable

CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishicontainer Corporation Of India Ltd, Dcit, C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Circle-3(1), Vs. Hospital, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Container Corporation Of India Ltd, Circle-3(1), C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Vs. New Delhi Hospital, New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent) Container Corporation Of India Ltd, Acit, C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Circle-3(1), Vs. Hospital, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Container Corporation Of India Ltd, Circle-3(1), C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Vs. New Delhi Hospital, New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent)

12 of 21 absence of such intangible assets it would have been difficult for the assessee to carry on its business. Therefore, it was held that such intangible assets are eligible for depreciation in terms of section

C.I.T vs. DENSO INDIA LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

12 of 19 for depreciation as per the aforesaid Clauses. She thus submitted that when the know-how is given even in the form of a licence, it falls under Section