VEDANTA LTD ,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

depreciation is restricted to 50% the same should be allowed in the subsequent year and if the same is not allowed, then it would completely defeat the purpose of the said section which was enacted to provide benefit on capitalisation. 65. In so far as applicability being prospective the ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

JX NIPPON TWO LUBRICANTS INDIA PVT. LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4985/Del/2019 :Asstt. Year : 2015-16 & Sa No. 985/Del/2019 :Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Jx Nippon Two Lubricants India Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd., Unit No. 1003, 10Th Floor, Vatika Circle-2(1), City Point, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcj3601L Assessee By :Sh. Nageswarrao, Adv. Revenue By:Sh. Vedprakash Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing:13.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2021

224 (Panaji) and observed that the Tribunal had held that goodwill was not eligible for depreciation in that case. 15. After considering all the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer held as under: “The assessee grossly failed to provide the any cogent and reliable material on the basis of which, the claim of depreciation was allowed

GBT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,OSD, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

224/- by disallowing depreciation on the cost of goodwill capitalized in the books of account, arising as a result of acquisition of Corporate Travel Business Division of American Express India Pvt. Ltd. ("AIEPL") during FY 2014-15 by the Appellant by the way of a slump sale. 7. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

section 224 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)” 52 I.T.A. No.881/DEL/2019 Thus, the aforesaid definition provides that for the purpose of determination of FMV of unquoted shares under sub Rule 2 of Rule 11UA, the balance sheet of the company includes notes annexed thereto forming part of the accounts as drawn on the valuation date which has been

M/S. AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiat & T Global Network Services Dcit, (India) Pvt Ltd., Circle-2(1), Vs. Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, At & T Global Network Services Circle-2(1), (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs. New Delhi Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation on the amount of Rs. 77,76,975/- is concerned, the AO is directed to verify if the respective assets have been put to use during the year or not and proceed accordingly. However, if the claim is allowed, the AO shall clearly specify in the assessment order that the benefits so allowed is subject to the final decision

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present Assessment Year also the facts are similar and are squarely covered with the decision of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Hence Ground Nos. 15 to 14.3 are allowed. 24. As regards Ground No. 16 to 16.2 is relating to Disallowance

M.M.METACRAFT PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Section 32(1)(iia) w.e.f. 01.04.2016. The proviso, inter alia, provides that balance 50% of the additional depreciation on new allotted machinery acquired or used for less than 180 days, which has not been allowed in the year of acquisition and installation of such plant and machinery shall be allowed in the immediately succeeding previous year. It was contended that

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. NAV NIRMAN SEWA SAMITI, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation of Rs.1,05, 12,224/ - to the assessee in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT(E) vs Charanjiv Charitable Trust dated 18.03.2014. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of carry

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. NAV NIRMAN SEWA SAMITI, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation of Rs.1,05, 12,224/ - to the assessee in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT(E) vs Charanjiv Charitable Trust dated 18.03.2014. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of carry

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S HI LINE PENS P.LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

depreciation under Section 32 of the said Act?” 3. The counsel for the parties agreed that no paper books would be necessary and that this appeal be heard straight away. 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed the aforesaid expenditure of Rs.14,03,835/- as a deduction under Section 30(a)(i) of the said

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. METRO TYRES LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

224/-, but in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 the depreciation on the capitalized non-compete fee claimed that Rs.26,80,668/-was disallowed. Reasoning given by the Assessing Officer to disallow this claim is that the issue hinges around the interpretation of the phrase "business or commercial rights of similar nature" used in clause (ii) of section

M/S. METRO TYRES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

224/-, but in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 the depreciation on the capitalized non-compete fee claimed that Rs.26,80,668/-was disallowed. Reasoning given by the Assessing Officer to disallow this claim is that the issue hinges around the interpretation of the phrase "business or commercial rights of similar nature" used in clause (ii) of section

M/S. METRO TYRES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

224/-, but in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 the depreciation on the capitalized non-compete fee claimed that Rs.26,80,668/-was disallowed. Reasoning given by the Assessing Officer to disallow this claim is that the issue hinges around the interpretation of the phrase "business or commercial rights of similar nature" used in clause (ii) of section

M/S METRO TYRES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

224/-, but in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 the depreciation on the capitalized non-compete fee claimed that Rs.26,80,668/-was disallowed. Reasoning given by the Assessing Officer to disallow this claim is that the issue hinges around the interpretation of the phrase "business or commercial rights of similar nature" used in clause (ii) of section

M/S METRO TYRES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

224/-, but in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 the depreciation on the capitalized non-compete fee claimed that Rs.26,80,668/-was disallowed. Reasoning given by the Assessing Officer to disallow this claim is that the issue hinges around the interpretation of the phrase "business or commercial rights of similar nature" used in clause (ii) of section

M/S. METRO TYRES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

224/-, but in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 the depreciation on the capitalized non-compete fee claimed that Rs.26,80,668/-was disallowed. Reasoning given by the Assessing Officer to disallow this claim is that the issue hinges around the interpretation of the phrase "business or commercial rights of similar nature" used in clause (ii) of section

M/S. METRO TYRES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

224/-, but in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 the depreciation on the capitalized non-compete fee claimed that Rs.26,80,668/-was disallowed. Reasoning given by the Assessing Officer to disallow this claim is that the issue hinges around the interpretation of the phrase "business or commercial rights of similar nature" used in clause (ii) of section

METRO TYRES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

224/-, but in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 the depreciation on the capitalized non-compete fee claimed that Rs.26,80,668/-was disallowed. Reasoning given by the Assessing Officer to disallow this claim is that the issue hinges around the interpretation of the phrase "business or commercial rights of similar nature" used in clause (ii) of section

M/S METRO TYRES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 1031/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Metro Tyres Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee Range-6, Nagar, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3394A

224/-, but in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 the depreciation on the capitalized non-compete fee claimed that Rs.26,80,668/-was disallowed. Reasoning given by the Assessing Officer to disallow this claim is that the issue hinges around the interpretation of the phrase "business or commercial rights of similar nature" used in clause (ii) of section