CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

14 per cent. Consequently, Section 45 was applicable. However, it was held that Section 50 is not applicable since the asset itself was not transferred. 16. As regards the land and building, the ITAT held that their ownership continued to remain with the Assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was modified and the AO was directed to re-compute

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

2,87,14,500/-. Therefore, on difference of Rs. 64,82,790/- on which assessee is eligible for depreciation @ 10% amounting to Rs.6,48,279/-. The assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 3519729/- on building and, therefore, excess depreciation claim of Rs.29,63,061/- was disallowed. 14 On appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals) he noted that assessee has received

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

depreciation is concerned, we find that the quantum has been deleted by the ITAT in I.T.A. Nos. 2162/Del/2007 and 2176/Del/2008 by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 and reported in 355 ITR 188 (Del). Accordingly, penalty is not imposable on this issue and ground

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

depreciation is concerned, we find that the quantum has been deleted by the ITAT in I.T.A. Nos. 2162/Del/2007 and 2176/Del/2008 by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 and reported in 355 ITR 188 (Del). Accordingly, penalty is not imposable on this issue and ground

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

depreciation is concerned, we find that the quantum has been deleted by the ITAT in I.T.A. Nos. 2162/Del/2007 and 2176/Del/2008 by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 and reported in 355 ITR 188 (Del). Accordingly, penalty is not imposable on this issue and ground

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

depreciation is concerned, we find that the quantum has been deleted by the ITAT in I.T.A. Nos. 2162/Del/2007 and 2176/Del/2008 by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 and reported in 355 ITR 188 (Del). Accordingly, penalty is not imposable on this issue and ground

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

depreciation is justified and the same is\nconfirmed. Ground nos. 8 to 11 of the appeal are dismissed.\n12.\nGround nos. 12 to 20 of the appeal are against the addition of Rs.418,66,34,625 under\nSection 56 (2)(viib) of the Act.\n12.1\nThe AO noted that during the year the assessee had issued 13492216 no. of equity

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

14,22,71,036 Gross Total Loss (13,71,80,294) From the above table, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10B without considering the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and that the assessee has not completely followed section 32(2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

14. Section 41(2) stands attracted only in the case of a sale of building, machinery, plant or furniture in the previous year. In other words, Section 41(2) applies to a sale of depreciable

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

14. Section 41(2) stands attracted only in the case of a sale of building, machinery, plant or furniture in the previous year. In other words, Section 41(2) applies to a sale of depreciable

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

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

14 read with Section 56(1) of the Act, provides an affirmative answer to the question whether income by way of voluntary contributions is ‘income from other sources’ in a situation where the proviso to Section 13A(1) of the Act is not fulfilled by a political party. ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 45 of 71 87. The decision

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

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

14 read with Section 56(1) of the Act, provides an affirmative answer to the question whether income by way of voluntary contributions is ‘income from other sources’ in a situation where the proviso to Section 13A(1) of the Act is not fulfilled by a political party. ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 45 of 71 87. The decision

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

14 read with Section 56(1) of the Act, provides an affirmative answer to the question whether income by way of voluntary contributions is ‘income from other sources’ in a situation where the proviso to Section 13A(1) of the Act is not fulfilled by a political party. 2016:DHC:2463-DB ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page

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

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

depreciated value of the building on the property which had been demolished to construct the hotel under the Collaboration Agreement dated December 18, 1976. 5. Clause (ii) of this Supplemental Agreement provided that the IHCL would pay the NDMC a sum of `12 lakhs per annum in lieu of house tax payable in respect of the hotel building. The Supplemental

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 143(2) on 31st October, 2003 at a loss of `6,03,14,560/-. The Assessing Officer, however, did not make any observation in respect of carry forward of unabsorbed loss including unabsorbed depreciation

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 subject to the modifications contained in sub-section (1) (i) to (ii) of Section 50 of the Act. 14