DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 13.05.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 13.05.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). d. Disallowed excess claim of depreciation of Rs.29

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 250(6) of the Act. In the result, ground nos. 1 & 7 of the appeal is allowed and the ground\nnos. 2 to 6 of the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.\n8.\nGround nos. 8 to 11 of the appeal are against the disallowance on 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

section (2) provides for the set- off of unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 or subsection (4) of section

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TX-IV vs. INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD.

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

2. The dispute in the present lis revolves around land bearing No.1, Man Singh Road, New Delhi ad-measuring 3.78 acres and the hotel building constructed thereon :‘Taj Man Singh Hotel’. The land had been allotted on a perpetual lease by the Government of India, L&DO (Land and Development) office vide allotment letter dated July

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED

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

2) of the Act, the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier previous years forms part of the current year's depreciation and thereafter allowance for depreciation is given from the current year's income. There is no such provision in Section

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 133 (6) of the act and asked details from Cairn India Limited , purchaser of the shares of Cairn India Holdings Limited. 08. The facts of the impugned transaction, undisputedly are noted by the Ld. assessing officer in para No. 7 of his order as under:- ―7. Analysis of the transaction of sale of shares of CIHL by Assessee (CUHL

INCOME TAX vs. LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

depreciable assets forming part of “block of assets” notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2 (42A) to which sections 48 and 49 of the Act apply

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. EASTMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

depreciable assets forming part of “block of assets” notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2 (42A) to which sections 48 and 49 of the Act apply

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

2). Such written down value had to be specified without taking into account the initial depreciation because such depreciation in terms of clause (vi) of section

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

2). Such written down value had to be specified without taking into account the initial depreciation because such depreciation in terms of clause (vi) of section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

depreciable assets. The AO had not accepted this contention and held that Section 50 was applicable and he, therefore, computed short term capital gain at `36.89 Crores on the sale of the said division, which is as under: “COMPUTATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF SALE OF LAMP DIVSIION AS PER SECTION 50[2

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

depreciable assets. The AO had not accepted this contention and held that Section 50 was applicable and he, therefore, computed short term capital gain at `36.89 Crores on the sale of the said division, which is as under: “COMPUTATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF SALE OF LAMP DIVSIION AS PER SECTION 50[2

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

depreciation, investment allowance, terminal allowance, etc. in accordance with law. ITAT's order on the Assessee's application under Section 254 (2

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

depreciation, investment allowance, terminal allowance, etc. in accordance with law. ITAT's order on the Assessee's application under Section 254 (2

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

depreciation, investment allowance, terminal allowance, etc. in accordance with law. ITAT's order on the Assessee's application under Section 254 (2