AREVA T & D INDIA LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and

section, it can safely be stated that the provision allows depreciation on both tangible and intangible assets and Clause (ii), as has been indicated hereinbefore, enumerates the intangible assets on which depreciation is allowable. The assets which are included in the definition of "intangible assets" includes, along with other things, any other business or commercial rights of similar nature

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

depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate would have to be adjusted in computing the eligible profits „attributable‟ to such business. The Supreme Court answered the question as follows:- “…….The court has further observed that in its opinion the deduction under Section 80E is a special benefit given to a company which satisfies the conditions under Section 80E and the deduction permissible

SELECT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The ld. CIT( A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,16,38,515/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of depreciation

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

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

22. Per contra, the ld. DR supported the findings of the DRP. 23. We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. We are of the considered opinion that this is not the initial year of claim of depreciation and in this year, the assessee has claimed depreciation on the written down value. We find that

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT vs. PALIWAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., PANIPAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

section 22 read with 23 of the Income Tax and 50% of depreciation respectively by completely overlooking the reasons detailed

DCIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT vs. PALIWAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., PANIPAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

section 22 read with 23 of the Income Tax and 50% of depreciation respectively by completely overlooking the reasons detailed

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT vs. PALIWAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., PANIPAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

section 22 read with 23 of the Income Tax and 50% of depreciation respectively by completely overlooking the reasons detailed

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT vs. PALIWAL OVERSEAS P.LTD, PANIPAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

section 22 read with 23 of the Income Tax and 50% of depreciation respectively by completely overlooking the reasons detailed

PALIWAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,PANIPAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

section 22 read with 23 of the Income Tax and 50% of depreciation respectively by completely overlooking the reasons detailed

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

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

22. The ld. Authorized Representative contended that the Explanation does not cover the assessee’s case inasmuch as the amount of additional depreciation originally claimed but subsequently withdrawn by the assessee is an incentive and not depreciation, and the same is admissible under section

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

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

C.I.T vs. DENSO INDIA LTD

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

depreciation is permissible in respect of any of these tangible or intangible assets, falling within these two Clauses of Sub-section (1). The question of allowing deprecation would arise only when it is first determined that the expenditure incurred is capital in nature. It is for this reason, we are not in a position to accept the argument

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)

22. The claim of depreciation is thus part of standard accounting practice which is required for fair presentation of a company's financials. The computation of income in the case of an entity to which section