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

VEDANTA LTD ,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

156/- and disallowed the same, while computing its total income. The working of the said disallowance claimed by the assessee is given herein above in the submissions made by the assessee. The AO was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee especially the explanation of the assessee that no administrative expenditure incurred on earning the dividend

PRASIDH FINCAP LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

section 80HHC of the 1961 Act, both by this Court and by the Kerala High Court, stand on different footing. 18. For the aforestated reasons, we find no merit in the Department's civil appeals which are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.” 8. Similar was the view taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

PRASIDH FINCAP LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

section 80HHC of the 1961 Act, both by this Court and by the Kerala High Court, stand on different footing. 18. For the aforestated reasons, we find no merit in the Department's civil appeals which are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.” 8. Similar was the view taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

PRASIDH FINCAP LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

section 80HHC of the 1961 Act, both by this Court and by the Kerala High Court, stand on different footing. 18. For the aforestated reasons, we find no merit in the Department's civil appeals which are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.” 8. Similar was the view taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED vs. ADDL. CIT,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

DCIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,HARYANA vs. DCIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

ACIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

DCIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

ACIT, HISAR vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act; 2. The assessee had not divested interest bearing funds to Jindal Holding Limited free of interest inasmuch as: (i) the amount had originally been advanced by Jindal Strips Limited and not the assessee; and (ii) loan was interest bearing and interest was also recognized upto financial year 1999-2000; 3. Jindal Holdings

DCIT, CIRCLE-19(1), NEW DELHI vs. OXIGEN SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

156/- being alleged excess depreciation claimed by the assessee at the rate of 60% on POS terminals treating them as computers whereas in view of the Ld. AO the same does not fall in the definition of computers given in Explanation to section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HYBRID RICE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Becoming An “Assessee” Can Still Be Treated As Actual Cost To The Assessee In Complete Disregard To The Peculiar Circumstances Of The Case?”

section 43 as per which actual cost means „the actual cost‟ of the assets to the assessee reduced by that portion of the cost thereof if any as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority. 4. We find that the issue in question as to whether actual cost should be taken for allowing of depreciation

CIT vs. VISHAL GUPTA

depreciation etc. as the case may be for the year concerned. Thus, the Assessing Officer should have some information which enable him to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the present case, whatever information was available with the Assessing Officer was considered by him before issuing notice under sec. 148 on 21.1.1997 in both these

CIT vs. VISHAL GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

depreciation etc. as the case may be for the year concerned. Thus, the Assessing Officer should have some information which enable him to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the present case, whatever information was available with the Assessing Officer was considered by him before issuing notice under sec. 148 on 21.1.1997 in both these

CIT vs. VISHAL GUPTA

depreciation etc. as the case may be for the year concerned. Thus, the Assessing Officer should have some information which enable him to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the present case, whatever information was available with the Assessing Officer was considered by him before issuing notice under sec. 148 on 21.1.1997 in both these

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present Assessment Year also the facts are similar and are squarely covered with the decision of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Hence Ground Nos. 15 to 14.3 are allowed. 24. As regards Ground No. 16 to 16.2 is relating to Disallowance