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 32(2) is that unabsorbed depreciation of a year becomes part of depreciation of subsequent year by legal fiction and when it becomes part of current year depreciation it is liable to be set off against any other income, irrespective of the fact that the earlier years return was filed in time or not. ITA No. 164/2008 Page

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 in the same or subsequent year. Thus, the issue was decided against the assessee. Language of Explanation 1 to Section 43(1) can also be referred to and we notice that the language of the Page 10 of 18

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 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 148 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 23/06/2011. In the return of income filed the assessee maintained its claim of depreciation on government approval and also made/claim of Rs.1,18

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

18 for AY 2011-12 on question of law is lying admitted. Consequently, Grounds No.2, 2.1 & 2.2 are determined against the taxpayer. GROUN NO. 3 22. AO/DRP have proceeded to add back disallowance of Rs.2,12,15,413/- made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules in computing the profit under section 115JB

C.I.T vs. DENSO INDIA LTD

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

18. By inserting Clause-(ii), in sub Section (1) of Section 32 of the Act, the Legislature has granted the benefit to the assessee, by providing depreciation

PVR PICTURES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 115JB by lower of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation is in issue. In the matter, the assessee contends that the only difference between the working of the assessee and the CIT(A) towards such adjustment is in relation to F.Y. 2010-11. In FY 2010-11, the assessee has claimed total book loss of Rs.22,18

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, therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer in computing the deduction under section 1 OB is correct. The reference of the CIT(A) to sub-section (6) of section 10B is misplaced as the said sub-section provides for the procedure to be adopted in the year immediately following the year in which the tax holiday comes

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

18. For the aforestated reasons, we hold that on the facts and circumstances of this case, which concerns assessment year 1970-71, it was not possible to compute capital gains and, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 10.20 cr. was not taxable under Section 45 of the 1961 Act. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside.” 24. When the matter

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

18. For the aforestated reasons, we hold that on the facts and circumstances of this case, which concerns assessment year 1970-71, it was not possible to compute capital gains and, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 10.20 cr. was not taxable under Section 45 of the 1961 Act. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside.” 24. When the matter

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

18. A Schedule annexed to the balance sheet as on 31.3.2002 depicting the breakdown of the claim of depreciation was also filed. Annexure IV to the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CA was filed alongwith the return of income quantifying the amount of depreciation admissible under the provisions of the Act. The assessing officer during the assessment proceedings under Section

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

18. A Schedule annexed to the balance sheet as on 31.3.2002 depicting the breakdown of the claim of depreciation was also filed. Annexure IV to the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CA was filed alongwith the return of income quantifying the amount of depreciation admissible under the provisions of the Act. The assessing officer during the assessment proceedings under Section

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

18. A Schedule annexed to the balance sheet as on 31.3.2002 depicting the breakdown of the claim of depreciation was also filed. Annexure IV to the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CA was filed alongwith the return of income quantifying the amount of depreciation admissible under the provisions of the Act. The assessing officer during the assessment proceedings under Section

CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

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

depreciation allowable on those assets for the AY 2000-01; however, in fact, the Assessee would have no assets at all. 18. It is difficult to accept that the provisions of Section

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

depreciation @ 25%. It was further submitted that following the appellate orders for the earlier years, the Ld. CIT (A) had deleted the disallowance made by the assessing officer. 26.0.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that in assessee’s own case for the AY 1996-97, the Tribunal took the view that the model fee paid

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation @ 25%. It was further submitted that following the appellate orders for the earlier years, the Ld. CIT (A) had deleted the disallowance made by the assessing officer. 26.0.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that in assessee’s own case for the AY 1996-97, the Tribunal took the view that the model fee paid

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. QUIPPO ENERGY (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4120/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Dcit, Quippo Energy (P) Ltd., D-2, 5Th Floor, Southern Park, Circle 20(2), Vs. New Delhi. Saket Place, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacq1675Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation. This ground of Revenue is rejected. 5. Coming to ground no.2 of grounds of appeal of the Revenue i.e. in respect of denying set off and carry forward of business loss invoking the provisions of Section 69 of the Act. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) held as under: - “7.1. On this ground, the Ld. AR furnished written submission

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 14A of the Act read with rule