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

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 11(5) of the Act. 21. The ld Assessing Officer has dealt with this issue vide page No. 8 to 13 as under:- “Construction of Building Assessee is running education institute and shown expenditure on land and building as per detail follows:- Head of Account Opening Addition during Closing Balance as on the year Balance

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

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

section 80IA(8) read with 80IB(13) and 80IC(7) of the Act, on account of allocation of depreciation on fixed

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 by giving undue benefit to the family members of the specified persons and the action of the management had duly caused huge financial losses to the assessee’s society. He also disallowed the depreciation on the assets which were purchased in the preceding years income. Accordingly, the AO allowed the depreciation of Rs.52

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 by giving undue benefit to the family members of the specified persons and the action of the management had duly caused huge financial losses to the assessee’s society. He also disallowed the depreciation on the assets which were purchased in the preceding years income. Accordingly, the AO allowed the depreciation of Rs.52

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

8. Even otherwise also, I find merit in appellant's claim that it's case is not covered by provisions of sec. Sections 13(2)/13(3) as no undue benefits were passed on to the specified persons u/s 13(3) of the Act. It would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 13

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)

depreciation claimed thereon. 6.1 That the AO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that subsidy received from the State Government was on capital account and was not directly or indirectly related to meeting any portion of the cost of any fixed asset. 6.2 That the AO erred on facts and in law in not following the binding

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

8. The ground No. 3 & 4 of the present appeal seeking denial of exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act for alleged violation of section 13 of the Act is covered by the finding of the Tribunal (supra) in paragraph 10 and 11. For ready reference, the said finding is reproduced as under: “10. As regards the allegation

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

8. The ground No. 3 & 4 of the present appeal seeking denial of exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act for alleged violation of section 13 of the Act is covered by the finding of the Tribunal (supra) in paragraph 10 and 11. For ready reference, the said finding is reproduced as under: “10. As regards the allegation

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

depreciation. It is\npertinent to note that the aforementioned revised returns were\nfiled within the extended timeline provided by CBDT Circular dated\n30.09.2020, which allowed filing of revised returns for AY 2019-20\nup to 30.11.2020 under Section 139(5) of the Act.\n\n3.\nOn 26.11.2020, the CPC issued an intimation under Section\n143(1) of the Act proposing

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

depreciation of comparable companies vis- à-vis the appellant. 8. That the Ld. AO/TPO/DRP has erred in the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law in not making appropriate adjustments to account for differences in working capital employed by the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparable while computing margins of comparable companies. 9. That on facts

ITO, WARD-35(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIJAY GUPTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

13. Chapter-VI-A Part-C of the Act deals with deductions in respect of certain income. 14. Section 80-IA was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act. 1991, with effect from 01.04.1991. By virtue of said Section, the gross total income (profits and gains) of an assessee derived from any business of an industrial undertaking, so specified therein

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 80 refers to the loss and not for unabsorbed depreciation and, therefore, in respect of carry forward of depreciation, there is no obligation to file return ITA No. 164/2008 Page 8 of 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

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

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and

8. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to consider the relevant provisions of Section 32 of the Act: “Section 32 - Depreciation (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after

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

8 of 25 Section 32 of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2001 was clarificatory in nature and hence, would apply to earlier years as well. The ITAT considered it unnecessary to decide this issue in view of the decision it had taken, dehors the amendment, which is that depreciation was required to be charged in calculating eligible profits