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

ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 13(3) of the Act and denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 5. From the aforesaid grounds raised by the department it would be clear that the main grievance of the department in this appeal relates to action of the ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction on account of depreciation

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 13(3) of the Act and denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 5. From the aforesaid grounds raised by the department it would be clear that the main grievance of the department in this appeal relates to action of the ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction on account of depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

13(2)(b) of the Act and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to avail exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act. He, therefore taxed the assessee as AOP and computed the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.1,93,93,48,991/- including therein addition of Rs. 31,20,000/- as income from house property and disallowance

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TPO-1(2)(2), New Delhi (referred to as ‘the AO’) vide order dated 20.12.2019 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has challenged the final order by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. 1. That on facts

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

depreciation. Thus it does not make any difference so far provisions of section 13 read with section 11 are concerned

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

depreciation. Thus it does not make any difference so far provisions of section 13 read with section 11 are concerned

L.S CABLE INDIA PVT LTD ,REWARI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] L S Cable India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.28-31, Sector-5, Cirlce-13(1), Phase-Ii, Hsiidc Gc Bawal, New Delhi Rewari, Haryana-23501. Pan-Aabcl3621Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri S.K.Jhadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2025

13,12,50,050 to the total income of the appellant by re- determining the arm's length price of international transaction of sale of manufacturing goods. 3. That the impugned AO/TPO order are invalid due to delay in reference of the case by the Ld. AO to Ld. TPO. 4. That the Ld. AO/TO/DRP has erred in the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

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

depreciation, observation of CIT(A) while applying 10% mark-up is irrational and contrary to his own findings. It may be appreciated that it is a case of simple allocation of costs incurred on behalf of units and as such loading of mark-up on such allocation is in total disregard to provisions of section 80IA(8) r.w.s. 80IB(13

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

depreciation, observation of CIT(A) while applying 10% mark-up is irrational and contrary to his own findings. It may be appreciated that it is a case of simple allocation of costs incurred on behalf of units and as such loading of mark-up on such allocation is in total disregard to provisions of section 80IA(8) r.w.s. 80IB(13

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

depreciation, observation of CIT(A) while applying 10% mark-up is irrational and contrary to his own findings. It may be appreciated that it is a case of simple allocation of costs incurred on behalf of units and as such loading of mark-up on such allocation is in total disregard to provisions of section 80IA(8) r.w.s. 80IB(13

HAMDARD NATION FOUNDATION (INDIA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 1641/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Hamdard National Foundation Vs Acit(E), (India), Hamdard Building, 2A/3, New Delhi-110002 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaath0843G Assessee By : Sh. R. M. Mehta, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.06.2020

Section 13(3) of the Act without any evidence and without discharging the onus that lay on the AO under the law. 3. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the lease transactions were between two Charitable Institutions and no individual had derived any benefit there from. 2 Hamdard National Foundation 4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds even

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) is that unabsorbed depreciation of a year becomes part of depreciation of subsequent year by legal fiction and when it becomes part of current year depreciation it is liable to be set off against any other income, irrespective of the fact that the earlier years return was filed in time or not. ITA No. 164/2008 Page 13

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

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and

13 of 31 was considering the question whether the assessee Company could claim depreciation on the Bombay Stock Exchange membership card held by it on the basis that it was a “licence” or “business or commercial right of a similar nature”. In that case the AO and the CIT(A) held that the assessee could not claim depreciation

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

13 intangible assets (described as goodwill) acquired as part of the running business. The AO, however, held that depreciation in terms of Section

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

13 of 25 owing to the fact that profit or gains chargeable being less than the depreciation allowance then, the Assessee can carry forward unabsorbed depreciation subject to the provisions of sub-Section

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

13,71,80,294) From the above table, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10B without considering the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and that the assessee has not completely followed section

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 143(3) of the Act on 09/12/2011 after disallowing depreciation on government approvals and rejecting the claim of depreciation on non-compete fee. In the appeal filed before the ld. CIT- (A), the assesee challenged validity of reassessment proceeding and contested disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also raised additional ground seeking depreciation on goodwill