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

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

section 142(2A) while confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. 8.2 The ld. AR on queries raised by the Bench responded that assessee trust is not running shops or distribution of products and for those shoppings and distribution and selling of products, as on commercial basis different entity is there

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASHOK LOGANI

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

Section 142(2A) on the pretend or on the pretext that such power exists and, therefore, should be exercised, iixistcnce of the power is not in dispute; it is the exercise of jjov^^er, WPC 356-2011 & conn, matters Page 26 of 42 which' is in dispute and question. The exercise of power must withstand and meet the requirements proscribed

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

142 against the appellant for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1981-82 are hereby quashed. The appeal stands allowed with costs. The above view is also get support by a decision of Nagpur Bench of this ITAT in the case of M.B. Traders v. Assit. CIT [2011] 9 ITR(T) 453/[2010] 132 TTJ 490 (Nagpur

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

142 against the appellant for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1981-82 are hereby quashed. The appeal stands allowed with costs. The above view is also get support by a decision of Nagpur Bench of this ITAT in the case of M.B. Traders v. Assit. CIT [2011] 9 ITR(T) 453/[2010] 132 TTJ 490 (Nagpur

M/s JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result the appeal is allowed and

142(1) of the Act as also initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act on the ground that the MODVAT amount which remained unutilized was debited to the Profit & Loss account as the assessee had paid the same during the relevant assessment year and hence was entitled to deduction under Section 43B of the Act. It was further

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 9 vs. M/S TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

142(1) of the Act, accompanied by detailed questionnaires, were issued on 01.02.2008, 31.07.2008, 04.11.2008 and 17.11.2008. 4. On 23.12.2008, the learned Assessing Officer [hereafter ‗the AO‘] passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Date:16.01.2025 12:33:08 Signature Not Verified ITA 687/2019 Page 3 of 25 total

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

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

142(1) and 143(2) were issued but adjourned on several times. Therefore, a notice under section 144 was issued on 27.2.2015 fixing date of compliance on 9.3.2015. On 9.3.2015 the assessee’s AR filed letter dated 9.3.2015. Therefore, the proceedings were decided under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the return of income the assessee

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

142(1) and 143(2) were issued but adjourned on several times. Therefore, a notice under section 144 was issued on 27.2.2015 fixing date of compliance on 9.3.2015. On 9.3.2015 the assessee’s AR filed letter dated 9.3.2015. Therefore, the proceedings were decided under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the return of income the assessee

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

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

section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from such customer. The said amendment also provided that contract for carrying out work shall not include contract

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

2 - Grant of License and Exclusivity ii) ARTICLE 3-No sublicense iii) ARTICLE 9 - Use and Disclosure of Technical Information iv) ARTICLE 13 - Terms of agreement (upto 30.06.2007) v) ARTICLE 21/22 Termination/Effect of Expiry and Termination vi) ARTICLE 25/26 Certain Prohibitions/Maintenance of Secrecy To the same effect are the following clauses placing restrictions on use of knowhow by the assessee

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

2. Certain additions to the existing building at 24, Akbar Road have been made during the year. Since the building is on rent from Government of India and the ownership does not vest in AICC, the amount spent on additions has been charged as depreciation during the year. 3. Certain Committees have prepared their final accounts in the form

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

2. Certain additions to the existing building at 24, Akbar Road have been made during the year. Since the building is on rent from Government of India and the ownership does not vest in AICC, the amount spent on additions has been charged as depreciation during the year. 3. Certain Committees have prepared their final accounts in the form

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

2. Certain additions to the existing building at 24, Akbar Road have been made during the year. Since the building is on rent from Government of India and the ownership does not vest in AICC, the amount spent on additions has been charged as depreciation during the year. 3. Certain Committees have prepared their final accounts in the form

NHPC LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

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

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 3650/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Nhpc Ltd., Tax, Circle-Ii, Nhpc Complex, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Ita No. 3738/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nhpc Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Nhpc Complex, 4Th Floor, Tax, Circle-Ii, Finance Div, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

depreciation on land is neither prescribed under the Income Tax Act nor in the Companies Act, 1956 and hence, the accounts of the company were not in accordance with the provision of part II and In of schedule VI of the Companies Act. The appellant, on the other hand, has contended that amortization of lease hold land has been made

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. NHPC LTD., FARIDABAD

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

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 3650/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Nhpc Ltd., Tax, Circle-Ii, Nhpc Complex, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Ita No. 3738/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nhpc Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Nhpc Complex, 4Th Floor, Tax, Circle-Ii, Finance Div, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

depreciation on land is neither prescribed under the Income Tax Act nor in the Companies Act, 1956 and hence, the accounts of the company were not in accordance with the provision of part II and In of schedule VI of the Companies Act. The appellant, on the other hand, has contended that amortization of lease hold land has been made