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 on producing facilities @ 5.28% on straight line method, thereby making adjustment of Rs.180,40,27,029 to the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO/DRP erred in not appreciating that the transactions of reimbursement of Rs.2,00,40,842, Manpower, general and administrative

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 9 vs. M/S TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

depreciation used in preparing the accounts for the annual general meeting under Section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956 must also be used for the purpose of this section. 21. At this juncture, it would be relevant to note that in terms of Section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956, Board of Directors of every company, including the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GLF LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Glf Lifestyle Pvt.Ltd., Circle-10(1), Flat No.3A/1, Taj Apartment, C.R.Building, Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aaecg3087E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.12.2021

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act for the reasons stated herein above and were accordingly eligible for depreciation. Therefore, depreciation is to be allowed on goodwill and the addition of Rs.3,01,12,211

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation of Rs. 211,64,18,512 under section 32(1 )(i) of the Act on written down value of Goodwill

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation of Rs. 211,64,18,512 under section 32(1 )(i) of the Act on written down value of Goodwill

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation of Rs. 211,64,18,512 under section 32(1 )(i) of the Act on written down value of Goodwill

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation of Rs. 211,64,18,512 under section 32(1 )(i) of the Act on written down value of Goodwill

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation of Rs. 211,64,18,512 under section 32(1 )(i) of the Act on written down value of Goodwill

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI vs. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation of Rs. 211,64,18,512 under section 32(1 )(i) of the Act on written down value of Goodwill

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 174 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 22.4 Thus, by virtue of Section 174 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the provisions of the said Act read along with the DERC regulations shall override the provisions of all other Acts, including the Companies Act, 1956. 22.5 Corresponding to the aforesaid, even the Companies Act, 1956 (section 616) and the Companies

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INSILCO LTD.

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:679-Db

211 provides that until the Central Government prescribes an accounting standard in consultation with the National Advisory Committee as set up under Section 210A of the Companies Act, 1956 pursuant to a recommendation of the ICAI; the Accounting Standard issued by the ICAI shall prevail. Therefore, we have no difficulty in accepting the submissions of the learned counsel

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INSILCO LIMITED

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:678-Db

211 provides that until the Central Government prescribes an accounting standard in consultation with the National Advisory Committee as set up under Section 210A of the Companies Act, 1956 pursuant to a recommendation of the ICAI; the Accounting Standard issued by the ICAI shall prevail. Therefore, we have no difficulty in accepting the submissions of the learned counsel

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, NEW DELHI vs. INSILCO LIMITED

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:678-Db

211 provides that until the Central Government prescribes an accounting standard in consultation with the National Advisory Committee as set up under Section 210A of the Companies Act, 1956 pursuant to a recommendation of the ICAI; the Accounting Standard issued by the ICAI shall prevail. Therefore, we have no difficulty in accepting the submissions of the learned counsel

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, NEW DELHI vs. INSILCO LIMITED

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:679-Db

211 provides that until the Central Government prescribes an accounting standard in consultation with the National Advisory Committee as set up under Section 210A of the Companies Act, 1956 pursuant to a recommendation of the ICAI; the Accounting Standard issued by the ICAI shall prevail. Therefore, we have no difficulty in accepting the submissions of the learned counsel

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INSILCO LTD.

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The „Cit(A)‟] Allowing Deduction On Account Of Provision Made By

211 provides that until the Central Government prescribes an accounting standard in consultation with the National Advisory Committee as set up under Section 210A of the Companies Act, 1956 pursuant to a recommendation of the ICAI; the Accounting Standard issued by the ICAI shall prevail. Therefore, we have no difficulty in accepting the submissions of the learned counsel

LNG SECURITIES SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

depreciation, shall be the same as have been adopted for the purpose of preparing such accounts including profit and loss account and laid before the company at its annual general meeting in accordance with the provisions of section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956). Section 115JB specifically provides that every assessee, being a company shall

DCIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAV NIRMAN SEWA SAMITI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing]

depreciation as well.” 4.2 In view of the above, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute in following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, and accordingly, we uphold the same. The ground of the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 5. Regarding second ground

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED vs. ADDL. CIT,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 32(1)(i) of the Act shall be calculated at the rate/ percentage specified in Appendix (1A) of the Rules on the actual cost of the assets. Second proviso to sub-rule (1A) provides that the undertaking may instead of claiming depreciation under sub-rule (1A), claim depreciation under sub-rule (1) read with Appendix 1 to the Rules