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

x 1956650902 _______________________________________________ __________________________________ Total Turnover 2200927477 = 57,86,08,285 Accordingly, the deduction u/s. 10B worked out to Rs.57,86,08,285/- as against Rs.66,30,07,954/- computed by the assessee. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A) where he also submitted additional evidence which was sent to the concerned officer

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

x) DIT (E) Vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (2014) 43 Taxman.com 300 (Del.); (xi) Mundakapadam Mandirams Society Vs. CIT (2002) 125 Taxman 515 (Ker.); (xii) Kamma Sangham Vs. DIT (E) (2014) 43 Taxman.com 192 (AP); (xiii) Shri Dhakad Samaj Dharamshala Bhawan Trust Vs. CIT (2008) 302 ITR 321 (MP); (xiv) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC); (xv) Distributors

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

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

Depreciation 2393 3 749 3145 Cairn U K Holdings Limited V DCIT ( International Taxation) New Delhi A Y 2007-08 P a g e | 34 Amortization 2242 -- 1620 3862 The segment assets and liabilities as at 31 December 2006 and capital expenditure for the year then ended are follows: Cairn India Capricorn Other Group 2006 Limited Energy Group Limited Group

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

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

x) In view of the overall excess of expenditure over income and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC), the interest charged under Section 234A and 234B of the Act was required to be deleted. (xi) The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed by observing that the allowance

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

x) In view of the overall excess of expenditure over income and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC), the interest charged under Section 234A and 234B of the Act was required to be deleted. (xi) The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed by observing that the allowance

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

x) In view of the overall excess of expenditure over income and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC), the interest charged under Section 234A and 234B of the Act was required to be deleted. (xi) The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed by observing that the allowance

B4S SOLUTIONS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

KRISHAN PAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-34(1), DELHI

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

SAVLEEN KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-54 (4), DELHI

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

ACIT, CIRCLE-49(1) , DELHI vs. AERO CLUB , DELHI

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

VACO BINARY SEMANTIES LLP,HARYANA vs. CIRCLE 4(1), HARYANA

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

ACIT, CIRCLE- 8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EARTHLINE APPARELS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

24, 2010 1) ITA No.417 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax . . . Appellant through : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. VERSUS ECE Industries Limited . . .Respondent through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate and Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocate. 2) ITA No.1069 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax . . . Appellant through : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. VERSUS ECE Industries Limited . . .Respondent through

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

24, 2010 1) ITA No.417 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax . . . Appellant through : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. VERSUS ECE Industries Limited . . .Respondent through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate and Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocate. 2) ITA No.1069 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax . . . Appellant through : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. VERSUS ECE Industries Limited . . .Respondent through

CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

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

24 of 31 of the Act, the same exhaust all categories of assets. Insofar as depreciable asset is concerned, clause (a) provides an extensive mechanism to compute its value. The working of clause (a) also does not yield results which are absurd or unreasonable so as to warrant looking for other aids to statutory interpretation for ascertaining the true legislative

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OXIGEN SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08

24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by ignoring the Explanation given to Section 36(1 )(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of due date. 10. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the ground of appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case

NEELU ANALJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of 15, Dr. Apj Abdul Kalam Road, Income Tax , New Delhi Special Range-9, Pan: Aatps06882D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

24 months by the Finance Act, 2016. However, the AO held that the proviso of sub-section 42A of section (2) clearly specifies that for the purpose of considering assets as 'short term capital asset', the period of holding is 12 months instead of 36 months, which is only in respect of following: ( Share or security listed in recognized stock