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. We are in agreement with the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. (supra). 16

GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 32(1) of the Act that depreciation is permissible in respect of intangible assets listed herein, acquired on or after 01.04.1998. This clause contains certain 15 specified and unspecified species of intangible assets. Whereas the specified intangible assets enshrined in the provision include know-how, patent and copyrights ITA No.1976/Del/2006 etc., the unspecified intangible assets have been described with

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

section 143(3) of the Act on 09/12/2011 after disallowing depreciation on government approvals and rejecting the claim of depreciation on non-compete fee. In the appeal filed before the ld. CIT- (A), the assesee challenged validity of reassessment proceeding and contested disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also raised additional ground seeking depreciation on goodwill

C.I.T vs. DENSO INDIA LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

depreciation would come in and only then the provisions of Section 32 would come into play, in order to determine, first, whether the expenditure is of the nature which falls within the ambit of Section 32 to be entitled to ITAs NO. 16

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

depreciation on producing facilities @ 5.28% on straight line method, thereby making adjustment of Rs.180,40,27,029 to the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO/DRP erred in not appreciating that the transactions of reimbursement of Rs.2,00,40,842, Manpower, general and administrative

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL I vs. SAIN PROCESSSING & WEAVING MILLS P.LTD.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

16 scrutiny and accordingly, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. 2.3 In response to the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, the authorized representative of the assessee, appeared before the Assessing Officer. During the course of the scrutiny, it was discovered that the assessee had not charged depreciation

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

depreciation as provided under sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Act, it is only thereafter that the income from profits and gains of business or profession are computed to be included in the total income of the assessee and ITA No. 3076 & C.O. No. 318/Del/2012 16

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

16. Special provisions are made for computation of capital gain in certain circumstances. We are concerned herein with two such events and to decide as to whether which of the two is applicable. First stage is provided in Section 50 which deals with computation of capital gains in case of depreciable

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

16. Special provisions are made for computation of capital gain in certain circumstances. We are concerned herein with two such events and to decide as to whether which of the two is applicable. First stage is provided in Section 50 which deals with computation of capital gains in case of depreciable

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 was a mandatory charge in the computation of income of a Trust. 15. Mr.N. Devanathan would distinguish the facts of Escorts (supra) from the present case on the ground that by virtue of granting weighted deduction under section 35, the asset itself was effaced which is not the case in an assessment Page 15 of 18 under section

M/S. SANYA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 32 (2) of the Act and not 139 (3) of the Act, hence the disallowance is bad in law & facts of the case. 2. Whether the CIT (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance Rs.2,16,45,449/- being the depreciation

M/S. SANYA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 32 (2) of the Act and not 139 (3) of the Act, hence the disallowance is bad in law & facts of the case. 2. Whether the CIT (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance Rs.2,16,45,449/- being the depreciation

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 on such software license was to be claimed @ 25% as against 60% claimed by the Appellant. 12. The Ld. AO / Ld. DRP erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by making a disallowance of notional expenditure of Rs. 16,90,576 per provisions of section

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 on such software license was to be claimed @ 25% as against 60% claimed by the Appellant. 12. The Ld. AO / Ld. DRP erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by making a disallowance of notional expenditure of Rs. 16,90,576 per provisions of section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - IV vs. BEVERAGES PVT. LTD

depreciation on goodwill in the assessment order even though the same claim was allowed in the earlier years and even though the Assessing Officer had before him detailed explanation in support of legal claim, it cannot be inferred that the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind to the matter. His decision to accept the submission of the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - IV vs. BEVERAGES PVT. LTD

depreciation on goodwill in the assessment order even though the same claim was allowed in the earlier years and even though the Assessing Officer had before him detailed explanation in support of legal claim, it cannot be inferred that the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind to the matter. His decision to accept the submission of the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - IV vs. BEVERAGES PVT. LTD

depreciation on goodwill in the assessment order even though the same claim was allowed in the earlier years and even though the Assessing Officer had before him detailed explanation in support of legal claim, it cannot be inferred that the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind to the matter. His decision to accept the submission of the assessee

M/S. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

section 32(1)(iia) as amended by the Finance Act, 2005, w.e.f. 01.04.2006, whereby the aforesaid condition of increase in installed capacity was removed and additional depreciation was available on any new plant and machinery acquired or installed after 31.03.2005 by an assessee engaged in the business of inter alia manufacture or production of any article or thing