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

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

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

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from such customer. The said amendment also provided that contract for carrying out work shall not include contract

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

22)(e) will not be applicable in the present case. The issue is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12. Therefore, Ground Nos. 10 to 10.3 are allowed in favour of the assessee. 34. As regards to Ground No. 11 to11.1 relating to disallowance of payments made for advisory services availed from

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

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. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

22 from such a sale must exceed the written down value of such building, machinery, plant or furniture. Section 41(2) states that certain gains from disposition of building, machinery, plant or furniture shall be deemed to be profits of the previous year. Section 41(2) refers to the concept of a "balancing charge" which arises only when depreciable

M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

depreciation adjustment) claimed by the Appellant and thus consequently arriving at an erroneous mark-up on cost for the comparable companies selected in the TP Order.” AY: 2011-12 “1. TP adjustment with respect to Business Process Outsourcing (‘BPO’) services segment from Associated Enterprises other than IBM World Trade Corporation (‘IBM WTC’) and IBM United Kingdom Ltd, (‘IBM UK’) That

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

depreciation adjustment) claimed by the Appellant and thus consequently arriving at an erroneous mark-up on cost for the comparable companies selected in the TP Order.” AY: 2011-12 “1. TP adjustment with respect to Business Process Outsourcing (‘BPO’) services segment from Associated Enterprises other than IBM World Trade Corporation (‘IBM WTC’) and IBM United Kingdom Ltd, (‘IBM UK’) That

M/S ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

22 of this order. Since neither the Assessing Officer nor ld. CIT (A) have undertaken the exercise of computation of long term capital gain as per provision of section 45 and 48 of Income Tax Act in our view, this exercise has to be undertaken afresh. 64. On the basis of our observations and findings recorded above, we reverse

CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

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

22 of 31 part of Section 43 of the Act. Thus, the only method to interpret clause (a) of Explanation 2 to Section 50B of the Act would be to read into the said clause (a) the language of Clause C so incorporated. If this is done, it would be apparent that the aggregate value of the assets constituting

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

2) of the Act before the ITAT praying for some directions to the AO while computing capital gains as directed in the judgement of the ITAT. In the application, 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 12 of 32 the Assessee contended that the value of the business was determined by M/s. S.S. Kothari

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

2) of the Act before the ITAT praying for some directions to the AO while computing capital gains as directed in the judgement of the ITAT. In the application, 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 12 of 32 the Assessee contended that the value of the business was determined by M/s. S.S. Kothari

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

2) of the Act before the ITAT praying for some directions to the AO while computing capital gains as directed in the judgement of the ITAT. In the application, 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 12 of 32 the Assessee contended that the value of the business was determined by M/s. S.S. Kothari

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RITESH PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit Vs. Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd. Circle – 15(1), 11/5B, First Floor, Pussa Road, C.R. Bldg., I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aaacr1437M (Applicant) (Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 329/Del/2011 (In Ita No. 3920/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2008-09

2(22)(e) of the Act, to apply the mischief of the said section is not at all satisfied in the facts of the present case. Further, there is no denial of the submission made on behalf of the assessee that no other shareholder in the assessee simultaneously held more than 20% of the voting power in the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

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

2) of Section 50, where any block of assets are transferred, the cost of depreciation at the hands of the transferee shall be written down value of the block of assets at the beginning of the previous year, as increased by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block of assets, acquired by the assessee during the previous

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

2) of Section 50, where any block of assets are transferred, the cost of depreciation at the hands of the transferee shall be written down value of the block of assets at the beginning of the previous year, as increased by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block of assets, acquired by the assessee during the previous