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

depreciation on government approval and also made/claim of Rs.1,18,89,458/- being 1/5th of “non- compete fee” as deferred revenue expenditure. The reasons recorded were provided to the assessee. Notices under section 143(2) and 142

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 193/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 1849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd., Central Circle-15, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura New Delhi-110055 Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F Co No. 271/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Co No. 284/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura Central Circle-15, Road, New Delhi-110044 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F

depreciation disallowance. 8. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 43,03,908/- made on account of disallowance of proportionate interest expenses. 9. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 193/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 1849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd., Central Circle-15, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura New Delhi-110055 Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F Co No. 271/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Co No. 284/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura Central Circle-15, Road, New Delhi-110044 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F

depreciation disallowance. 8. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 43,03,908/- made on account of disallowance of proportionate interest expenses. 9. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition

BTL HOLDING CO. LTD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

BTL HOLDING CO. LTD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

BTL HOLDING CO. LTD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

142 or Section 148 but assessments have not been made till the date of search or requisition, on the basis of the income disclosed in such returns; (c) where the due date for filing a return of income has expired, but no return of income has been filed,— (A) on the basis of entries as recorded in the books

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(4) and decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Himata Singike Seide Ltd. (2006) 156 taxman 151 (Kar). The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice stating that why brought forward unabsorbed depreciation may not be first allowed before calculating the deduction u/s. 10B of the Act. The assessee’s reply is incorporated

DONALDSON INDIA FILTERS SYSTEMS PVT. LTD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 10(1)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

JAGRITI JOB FINDER PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CENTRAL - 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishram/S Jagriti Job Finder Vs. Pcit (Central) -1 Private Limited, 222, 2Nd New Delhi-110055 Floor Hemkunt Chamber, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj5974E Appellant .. Respondent

142(1) ofthe Income-tax Act 1961 wherein certain documents/information/clarification are desired by Your Honour's. With respect to specific queries raised by Your Honour's, the point wise reply are being enclosed herewith:- P a g e | 11 M/s Jagriti Job Finder Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT(Central)-1 Delhi 1. As regard Your Honour's query regarding the details

DHARAM SINGH ,U.P vs. PR. CIT BAREILLY , U.P

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18

sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act from time to time calling upon the assessee to furnish various details. As observed by the Assessing Officer, in response to such notices, the assessee furnished replies, documents, books of account, bills and vouchers etc., which were verified on test check basis. While

GARG ZEVAR PALACE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 9542/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Garg Zevar Palace Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer(E), C/O Kapil Goel, Adv., Ward-1(3), F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Faridabad, Haryana New Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccg0565H Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.03.2021

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

KESRI STEELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 5 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: N. K. Choudharydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 7717/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Kesri Steels Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, G & Ju Block, 26-A, Pitampura, Special Range-5, New Delhi-110088 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0503G Assessee By : Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2022

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

depreciation restricted @25% instead of @60% claimed, which is not applicable as per the provision of Income Tax Rule, 1962. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or vary from the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 4. At the first instance, we will deal with the appeal of the assessee

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

depreciation restricted @25% instead of @60% claimed, which is not applicable as per the provision of Income Tax Rule, 1962. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or vary from the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 4. At the first instance, we will deal with the appeal of the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1),DELHI, DELHI vs. EBERSPAECHER SUETRAK BUS CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

The Appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

depreciation, and warranty provisions. The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 68", "Section 143(2)", "Section 142

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

142(1) or s. 148 of the said Act, to disclose fully and truly all material facts for his assessment for that assessment year. Therefore, it is only when the case falls under the proviso that the question of non-disclosure of material facts would become relevant. In such cases, if the assessee has made full disclosure on record, then

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

depreciation of Rs. 9,14,57,036/- following the arbitrary transfer pricing adjustment particularly when all the requisite details & documents were placed before the authorities with regard to purchase of capital assets and hence, the entire erroneous addition needs to be deleted.\n13. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well