DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. M/S LUFTHANSA CARGO INDIA P .

depreciation. The aggregate of the direct expenditure incurred outside India works out to 55%, 81% and 67% of the total expenses debited to Profit & 2015:DHC:4797-DB ITA 95/2005 Page 12 Loss Account of each of the three years. It is submitted that remaining indirect expenditure was on account of Head Office expenses in India and expenditure

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

220-262 of Paper Book Vol-2) striking down the ICDS as ultra vires the provisions of the Act, being in excess of delegated legislation. Section 43CB was inserted in the Act with a view to provide legal sanction to the provisions of ICDS III and ICDS IV. 20. A perusal of section 43CB would show that the same

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

220-262 of Paper Book Vol-2) striking down the ICDS as ultra vires the provisions of the Act, being in excess of delegated legislation. Section 43CB was inserted in the Act with a view to provide legal sanction to the provisions of ICDS III and ICDS IV. 20. A perusal of section 43CB would show that the same

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

220-262 of Paper Book Vol-2) striking down the ICDS as ultra vires the provisions of the Act, being in excess of delegated legislation. Section 43CB was inserted in the Act with a view to provide legal sanction to the provisions of ICDS III and ICDS IV. 20. A perusal of section 43CB would show that the same

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

220-262 of Paper Book Vol-2) striking down the ICDS as ultra vires the provisions of the Act, being in excess of delegated legislation. Section 43CB was inserted in the Act with a view to provide legal sanction to the provisions of ICDS III and ICDS IV. 20. A perusal of section 43CB would show that the same

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

220-262 of Paper Book Vol-2) striking down the ICDS as ultra vires the provisions of the Act, being in excess of delegated legislation. Section 43CB was inserted in the Act with a view to provide legal sanction to the provisions of ICDS III and ICDS IV. 20. A perusal of section 43CB would show that the same

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2007 – 08 and 2008 – 09 we set-aside this ground of appeal back to the file of the learned assessing officer. 49. Ground number 13 is with respect to Proportionate cost of Model Fee considered in valuation of closing stock

MANTRAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act, to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

220 of 2013 (Cal. HC) - ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd.: 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) - Religare Enterprises Ltd. v. DCIT: 1549/Del/2014 (Del Trib.) - Religare Securities Ltd vs. ACIT: ITA 2282/Del/2013 - Religare Securities Ltd vs. DCIT: ITA 230/Del/2017 Amendment in section 14A vide Finance Act, 2022, w.e.f., 01.04.2022 prospective in nature 38 For sake of completeness, it is pointed

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)

depreciation in respect of earlier let out DLF Centre Building, now converted to self occupied property. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law and on the 14. facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,75,95,830/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of prior period expenses. The Commissioner of Income

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)

depreciation in respect of earlier let out DLF Centre Building, now converted to self occupied property. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law and on the 14. facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,75,95,830/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of prior period expenses. The Commissioner of Income

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

depreciation on the ground that the investment made by the assessee in Wing Turbine Generation (WTG) cannot be equated with activities in the nature of trade or business or adventure. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting disallowance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

depreciation on the ground that the investment made by the assessee in Wing Turbine Generation (WTG) cannot be equated with activities in the nature of trade or business or adventure. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting disallowance

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

depreciation on the ground that the investment made by the assessee in Wing Turbine Generation (WTG) cannot be equated with activities in the nature of trade or business or adventure. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting disallowance

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

depreciation on the ground that the investment made by the assessee in Wing Turbine Generation (WTG) cannot be equated with activities in the nature of trade or business or adventure. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting disallowance

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

Section 220(7). This stand of the assessee has already been accepted by the department in the preceding years. The Assessing Officer has not allowed the relief u/s 220(7) and has deferred for consideration as separate proceedings. 14. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal

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)

220 KV 2,36,30,757 49,81,364 1,86,49,393 Transmission lines 63 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets in view of the position in law, which is stated as under. 89. In terms of clause (i) of sub-section

ACIT, HISAR vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

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)

220 KV 2,36,30,757 49,81,364 1,86,49,393 Transmission lines 63 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. The depreciation was claimed on the written down value of the assets in view of the position in law, which is stated as under. 89. In terms of clause (i) of sub-section