ACIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

15) of I.T. Act read with 3rd proviso to Section 143(3) of I.T. Act was invoked and exemption U/s 10(23C)(iv) was denied to the assessee. Further, out of assessee’s claim for depreciation

ITO (E), DELHI vs. ALL INDIAN FINE ARTS & CRAFTS SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. R. K. Pandaita No. 1806/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer(E), Vs All India Fine Arts & Crafts Trust Ward-1(1), Society, 1, Rafi Marg, Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaata7840E Assessee By : Sh. Rajan Malik, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing :29.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2019 Order Per R. K. Panda:

15,960/-. While computing income so determined, he further disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee on the ground that the cost of assets had already been treated as application of income while assessing the income of the assessee u/s 11 & 12 of the Act. Therefore, the depreciation cannot be allowed again which will amount to double deduction

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

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and

depreciation under that Section. 15. In view of the above, it is not necessary to decide the alternative submission made

ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. SONDHI CHARITABLE HOSPITAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

depreciation on assets purchased during the year: Rs. 3,00,949/- Total Application of Income Rs. 3,00,90,296/- Rs. 2,95,79,570/- Add: Amount as per Section 69 Deemed Income Rs. 14,000/- Deemed income Rs. 2,95,93,570/- 2.1 It has been noted by the Assessing officer in the assessment order that the assessee

M/S. ALL INDIA FINE ARTS & CRAFTS SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 2(15) of the Act. The AO noted that the society had recovered maintenance charges of Rs. 14,08,110/- from the various artists and had also earned Rs. 20,00,000/- from sale of art objects. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to disallow the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act and brought

M/S. ALL INDIA FINE ARTS & CRAFTS SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 2(15) of the Act. The AO noted that the society had recovered maintenance charges of Rs. 14,08,110/- from the various artists and had also earned Rs. 20,00,000/- from sale of art objects. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to disallow the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act and brought

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

15% or 100% is a debatable issue and cannot be called as a ground for levying penalty. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the depreciation claimed by the bank in the case of amalgamation is governed by section

VEDANTA LTD (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LTD),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

15,413 under section l4A read with Rule 8D of the Rules in computing book profit under section 115J8 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in allowing claim of additional 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

depreciation under that section. 43. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court from para 12 to 15 are as under

ACIT(E)- CIRCLE- 1(1), NEW DELHI vs. INDIA HABITAT CENTRE , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation to assessee-society, computed the net taxable income at Rs.4,61,15,838/-. 4. The assessee-society challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A) and explained that activities of the assessee-society can be examined under all the limbs of Section

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S SOCIETY FOR DRIVER TRAINING INSTITUTE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 164 at MMR (Minimum Marginal Rate) only depreciation on the fixed assets purchases during the year will be allowed.” 3. However, the Ld. CIT (A allowed the assessee’s appeal by observing as under: “In this regard I have gone through the written submission of the Id. AR of the appellant and finding of the AO in the assessment

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 75 which provides that the partners of a registered firm are exclusively entitled to carry forward and set off losses are only applicable in respect of business losses or losses in speculation business and cannot be applicable to carry forward and set off of depreciation allowance.” 15

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

section 80HH, without taking into consideration the current depreciation will have to be rejected.” 2008:DHC:2521 ITA No. 579-07 Page 25 of 25 15

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

15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in directing the AO to allow benefits of Section 11 & 12 of the l.T Act, ignoring the fact the assessee has violated the provision of Section

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

15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in directing the AO to allow benefits of Section 11 & 12 of the l.T Act, ignoring the fact the assessee has violated the provision of Section

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2011-12] The D.C.I.T. Vs. India Olympic Association Circle - 1 Olympic Bhavan, B -29 Dehradun Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi

section 2(15) of the Act squarely applies and hence does not fall within the category of ‘charitable organization’. Accordingly, benefit u/s 11/12 of the Act was denied to the assessee. 8. On further probe, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation

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 the non-compete fee. The reassessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 and 254 of the Act on 09/12/2011 ,assessing the total income at Rs.3,91,17,150/- against the returned income of Rs.2,15

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)

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year. 4. The various sub-sections of section 11 stipulate the methodology for computing the income applied to charitable and religious purposes and the 15