HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

2 - Grant of License and Exclusivity ii) ARTICLE 3-No sublicense iii) ARTICLE 9 - Use and Disclosure of Technical Information iv) ARTICLE 13 - Terms of agreement (upto 30.06.2007) v) ARTICLE 21/22 Termination/Effect of Expiry and Termination vi) ARTICLE 25/26 Certain Prohibitions/Maintenance of Secrecy To the same effect are the following clauses placing restrictions on use of knowhow by the assessee

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

220/-. He submitted that Assessing Officer had erred in not considering the balance 4 companies for the purpose of determining the Fair Market Value of shares as per the Rule and all are considered cumulatively, then the overall valuation would be negative. 24. Before that, his first point of contention is that the deeming provision of Section 56(2)(viia

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

220/- (iv) Delegation fee Rs. 13,375/- (v) AICC Membership fund Rs. 600/-” 20. The details of ‘other income’ were furnished in Schedule 6 of the accounts and read as under: “Other Income i. Interest on Fixed deposits Rs. 89,72,827/- ii. Miscellaneous Receipts Rs. 13,532/- iii. Donation Rs.2,22,73,430/- iv. Literature Sale

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

220/- (iv) Delegation fee Rs. 13,375/- (v) AICC Membership fund Rs. 600/-” 20. The details of ‘other income’ were furnished in Schedule 6 of the accounts and read as under: “Other Income i. Interest on Fixed deposits Rs. 89,72,827/- ii. Miscellaneous Receipts Rs. 13,532/- iii. Donation Rs.2,22,73,430/- iv. Literature Sale

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

220/- (iv) Delegation fee Rs. 13,375/- (v) AICC Membership fund Rs. 600/-” 20. The details of ‘other income’ were furnished in Schedule 6 of the accounts and read as under: “Other Income i. Interest on Fixed deposits Rs. 89,72,827/- ii. Miscellaneous Receipts Rs. 13,532/- iii. Donation Rs.2,22,73,430/- iv. Literature Sale

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 147/148 of the Act was initiated correctly by Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.98,80,220

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S JUBLIANT ORGANOSYS LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year as well

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year as well

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, MORADABAD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year as well

POTENT FOODS PRIVATE LIMTED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(1), 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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

depreciation. The aggregate of the direct expenditure incurred outside India works out to 55%, 81% and 67% of the total expenses debited to Profit & 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 on the ground staff, overnight stay

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

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

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