GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

20,713,187 being depreciation claimed under section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act, on the amount of goodwill. 4.2 That

VEDANTA LTD (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LTD),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

depreciation by invoking the provisions contained under section 32 (1)(iia) read with section 32(1)(i) & 32(1)(ii) and Explanation 5 20

DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HALDIRAM SNACKS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

20% depreciation (i.e. 10% additional depreciation) under section 32(1)(iia) in AY 2007-08and allowance of balance 10% depreciation

PITNEY BOWES INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, namely:- (c) where an assessment has been made, but - ……………………………………………………………………… (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed.” 4.4.6 In view of above, the Ld. CIT-(A) held that Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment

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

depreciation, therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer in computing the deduction under section 1 OB is correct. The reference of the CIT(A) to sub-section (6) of section 10B is misplaced as the said sub-section provides for the procedure to be adopted in the year immediately following the year in which the tax holiday comes

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

20%. Accordingly, the assessee claims that the application of income would include Rs.10,000/- which is to be allowed as depreciation as to this extent, the asset purchased has depreciated. In other words, Rs.60,000/- is to be treated as application of money for the purpose of clause a to Section

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

20%. In such a situation, although both the companies use similar type of assets and everything else is also equal, but their respective operating profit percentages undergo change due to higher or lower rate of depreciation, thereby distorting their comparability. It is this difference in the amounts of depreciation due to different rates of depreciation and not due to different

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

20%. In such a situation, although both the companies use similar type of assets and everything else is also equal, but their respective operating profit percentages undergo change due to higher or lower rate of depreciation, thereby distorting their comparability. It is this difference in the amounts of depreciation due to different rates of depreciation and not due to different

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, both the grounds of appeal raised by the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishiaddl. Cit, Vs. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd, Special Range-6, Room No. 352, C-27, Ground Floor, Cr Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi Near Garden Of Five Senses Westend Marg, Paryavaran Complex, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn1424B (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 32 lay down any pre-requisite of filing the return of income within prescribed time limit for carry forward of such unabsorbed depreciation. Hence, in the instant case, unabsorbed depreciation of INR 4,37,20

M/S. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. I. C. Sudhir, Jm Ita Nos. 2203 To 2207/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09 M/S New Okhla Industrial Vs Acit, Circle-1, Development Authority, Sector-6, Nodia Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaln0120A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Sunil Kumar, Dinesh Verma, Raj Rani Lakra & Reema Malik, Cas Revenue By: Sh. Gunjan Prashad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 20.01.2014 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2008-09 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Noida.

Section 10(20) of the Act. It was stated that against the said order of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, the assessee filed SLP which had been admitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.01.2014 (a reference was made to page no. 90 the assessee’s paper book). It was contended ITA Nos. 2203 to 2207/Del/2014

M/S. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. I. C. Sudhir, Jm Ita Nos. 2203 To 2207/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09 M/S New Okhla Industrial Vs Acit, Circle-1, Development Authority, Sector-6, Nodia Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaln0120A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Sunil Kumar, Dinesh Verma, Raj Rani Lakra & Reema Malik, Cas Revenue By: Sh. Gunjan Prashad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 20.01.2014 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2008-09 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Noida.

Section 10(20) of the Act. It was stated that against the said order of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, the assessee filed SLP which had been admitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.01.2014 (a reference was made to page no. 90 the assessee’s paper book). It was contended ITA Nos. 2203 to 2207/Del/2014

M/S LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

20,57,09,950 (excluding cost of land) was capitalized and depreciation was claimed thereon @25% under section 32(1) of the Act. Further

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

20,57,09,950 (excluding cost of land) was capitalized and depreciation was claimed thereon @25% under section 32(1) of the Act. Further

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

20,57,09,950 (excluding cost of land) was capitalized and depreciation was claimed thereon @25% under section 32(1) of the Act. Further

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

20,57,09,950 (excluding cost of land) was capitalized and depreciation was claimed thereon @25% under section 32(1) of the Act. Further

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

20,57,09,950 (excluding cost of land) was capitalized and depreciation was claimed thereon @25% under section 32(1) of the Act. Further

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

20,57,09,950 (excluding cost of land) was capitalized and depreciation was claimed thereon @25% under section 32(1) of the Act. Further

C.I.T vs. DENSO INDIA LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

20% of the total know how payment taken as part of the plant and machinery but no depreciation charged” The assessee had treated payment of ` 3,08,14,000 made to M/s Denso Corporation, Japan in acquisition of know-how as capital expenditure. On this amount, depreciation under Section