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 43(1) of the Act is to be considered for allowing depreciation and not the cost to his predecessor/seller except where so required by specifically stated provision. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jogta Coal Co. Ltd versus CIT (1959) 36 ITR 521 and ruling

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

section 10B of the Act), instead of Rs.64,80,02,118/- declared by the assessee. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.11.2006, declaring nil income after adjustment of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation to the tune of Rs.2,01,54,617/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were

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)

127 ITR 378), in support of his submission that commercial principles of accounting are to be applied in computing income for the purposes of section 11. He would refer to the Accounting Standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (in short ICAI) to the effect that depreciation

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

section 5 of the income tax act in case of either business income or u/s 28. Hence, according to us, the membership fee income of the assessee should be chargeable to tax in the year to which it pertains. Therefore, we reverse the finding of the learned CIT – A in holding that that a sum of INR 3 5288416 received

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

section 5 of the income tax act in case of either business income or u/s 28. Hence, according to us, the membership fee income of the assessee should be chargeable to tax in the year to which it pertains. Therefore, we reverse the finding of the learned CIT – A in holding that that a sum of INR 3 5288416 received

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

section 5 of the income tax act in case of either business income or u/s 28. Hence, according to us, the membership fee income of the assessee should be chargeable to tax in the year to which it pertains. Therefore, we reverse the finding of the learned CIT – A in holding that that a sum of INR 3 5288416 received

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

section 5 of the income tax act in case of either business income or u/s 28. Hence, according to us, the membership fee income of the assessee should be chargeable to tax in the year to which it pertains. Therefore, we reverse the finding of the learned CIT – A in holding that that a sum of INR 3 5288416 received

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

section 5 of the income tax act in case of either business income or u/s 28. Hence, according to us, the membership fee income of the assessee should be chargeable to tax in the year to which it pertains. Therefore, we reverse the finding of the learned CIT – A in holding that that a sum of INR 3 5288416 received

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

section 5 of the income tax act in case of either business income or u/s 28. Hence, according to us, the membership fee income of the assessee should be chargeable to tax in the year to which it pertains. Therefore, we reverse the finding of the learned CIT – A in holding that that a sum of INR 3 5288416 received

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

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, HARYANA

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 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

ACIT, HISAR vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., 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 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

DCIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., 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 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

ACIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., 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 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI 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 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED vs. ADDL. CIT,

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 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

DCIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., 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 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

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 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings