TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

v. CIT 172 ITR 311(SC) and held that the transaction of lease would fall within the general meaning of transfer of a capital asset. Therefore, it would be futile to examine whether Section 269UA was applicable. The ITAT held that the Explanation to Section 2(47) could be invoked only

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S ABHUINANDAN INVESTMENTS LT

Appeals are allowed

2(47). Thus, the judgment of Grace Collis and Ors. (supra) has a direct bearing on the present case, and pertinently because the findings of the ITAT are solely resting on the decision in Rasiklal Maneklal (supra) which has been 2020:DHC:2490-DB ITA 822/2005 & connected matters Page 28 of 37 considered and not followed in the later decision

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

2(47). Thus, the judgment of Grace Collis and Ors. (supra) has a direct bearing on the present case, and pertinently because the findings of the ITAT are solely resting on the decision in Rasiklal Maneklal (supra) which has been ITA 822/2005 & connected matters Page 28 of 37 considered and not followed in the later decision in Grace Collis

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASI

Appeals are allowed

2(47). Thus, the judgment of Grace Collis and Ors. (supra) has a direct bearing on the present case, and pertinently because the findings of the ITAT are solely resting on the decision in Rasiklal Maneklal (supra) which has been 2020:DHC:2490-DB ITA 822/2005 & connected matters Page 28 of 37 considered and not followed in the later decision

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD.

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

2(47). Thus, the judgment of Grace Collis and Ors. (supra) has a direct bearing on the present case, and pertinently because the findings of the ITAT are solely resting on the decision in Rasiklal Maneklal (supra) which has been ITA 822/2005 & connected matters Page 28 of 37 considered and not followed in the later decision in Grace Collis

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

2(47). Thus, the judgment of Grace Collis and Ors. (supra) has a direct bearing on the present case, and pertinently because the findings of the ITAT are solely resting on the decision in Rasiklal Maneklal (supra) which has been 2020:DHC:2490-DB ITA 822/2005 & connected matters Page 28 of 37 considered and not followed in the later decision

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

47,87,562 Deferred payment liability under finance lease 13,68,30,471 Deferred tax liability (net) 425,81,61,061 9,37,97,79,094 Total 302,39,58,18,339 APPLICATION OF FUNDS Fixed assets Gross Cost 152,84,05,817 Less:Accumulated depreciation and amortization 102,17,79,615 Cairn U K Holdings Limited V DCIT ( International

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

47,30,653 (1,82,53,482) Income from Capital Gain Short Term Capital Gain 64,46,187 Income from Other Sources 1,68,98,037 50,90,742 Less : Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation 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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 of 61 account of brokerage and commission. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law and on the 6. facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,39,112/- on account of contingency deposits received from customers during the year. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 of 61 account of brokerage and commission. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law and on the 6. facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,39,112/- on account of contingency deposits received from customers during the year. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred

TELENOR (INDIA) COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2(47) of the Act. (f) He also brought to our notice, the report No. 55 of 2015 of CAG which had been tabled before the Parliament wherein it had been stated by the CAG that no set off of non- refundable entry fee was permissible to the appellant on the grounds that the setoff would be permitted only

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

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation of ₹ 360,503,983/– on plant and machinery leased various authorities even though the assessee was no more the owner and the lease agreement was in the nature of higher purchase agreement. v. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation of ₹ 360,503,983/– on plant and machinery leased various authorities even though the assessee was no more the owner and the lease agreement was in the nature of higher purchase agreement. v. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance

M/S DIGITAL RADIO (DELHI) BROADCASTING LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No 1316 &1317/Del/2011 and ITA

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm Andsh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. 2006-07 Digital Radio (Delhi) Broadcasting Ltd. V Acit C/O. O.P. Sapra & Associates, S Circle-10(1) C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7864B A.Y. 2006-07 Acit V Digital Radio (Delhi) Circle-10(1) S Broadcasting Ltd. New Delhi 401, Dakha House, 18/17, Wea Karol Bagh New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7864B A.Y. 2006-07 Digital Radio (Kolkata) V Acit Broadcasting Ltd. S Circle-10(1) C/O. O.P. Sapra & New Delhi Associates, C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7863G

V Digital Radio (Mumbai) Circle-10(1) s Broadcasting Ltd. New Delhi 401, Dakha House, 18/17, WEA Karol Bagh New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCR7871C Appellant by : Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, CA, Sh. O.P. Sapra Respondent by : Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT., DR Page 2 of 23 Date of Hearing :06.10.2015 Date of Pronouncement :24.11.2015 ORDER Per Prashant Maharishi, AM: 01. Captioned

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)

section 10 of the Income-tax Act, which is transferred during the period beginning on 1st April, 2014 and ending on 10th July, 2014, the period of holding for its-qualification as short-term capital asset shall be not-more than twelve months." Thus, the aforesaid circular clearly clinches the issue and clarifies that, firstly, the benefit of shorter period

DABUR INDIA LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: We Consider The Submissions Made In Support Of The Appeal The Following Facts Require To Be Noted:- 2.1 The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Herbal Products & Cosmetics. On 30.11.2000 Assessee Filed Its Return For Assessment Year 2000-01 Wherein, It Declared An Income Of Rs 12,15,25,093/-. On 10.5.2001 The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Act As The Returned Income. However, Notices Were Issued Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. 2.2 In Response To The Aforesaid Notices, Hearing Was Attended By An Authorized Representative Before The Assessing Officer. 2008:Dhc:2521

47,451/-. The CIT (A) based his order on the decision of his predecessors in earlier assessment years i.e assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the CIT (A), the Revenue preferred an Appeal to the ITAT. 5. The ITAT after considering submissions of both sides allowed the Appeal

ITO, WARD-32(4), NEW DELHI vs. SWATI OBEROI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

v. Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. [1997]226 ITR 625 (SC), is a case under the Income-tax Act and has to be taken as a trend- setter in the concept of ownership. Assistance from the law laid down therein can be taken for finding out the meaning of the term "owned" as occurring in section