LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234 ITR 105 (P&H)- Amount received in advance under post warranty service charges, Held that amount pertaining to the year under consideration could only be taxed not the entire amount received  CIT v. Coral Electronics (P) Ltd. : 274 ITR 336 (Mad)  CIT v. Hindustan Computers Ltd. : 233 ITR 366 (All)  ACIT and DCIT vs. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234 ITR 105 (P&H)- Amount received in advance under post warranty service charges, Held that amount pertaining to the year under consideration could only be taxed not the entire amount received  CIT v. Coral Electronics (P) Ltd. : 274 ITR 336 (Mad)  CIT v. Hindustan Computers Ltd. : 233 ITR 366 (All)  ACIT and DCIT vs. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234 ITR 105 (P&H)- Amount received in advance under post warranty service charges, Held that amount pertaining to the year under consideration could only be taxed not the entire amount received  CIT v. Coral Electronics (P) Ltd. : 274 ITR 336 (Mad)  CIT v. Hindustan Computers Ltd. : 233 ITR 366 (All)  ACIT and DCIT vs. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234 ITR 105 (P&H)- Amount received in advance under post warranty service charges, Held that amount pertaining to the year under consideration could only be taxed not the entire amount received  CIT v. Coral Electronics (P) Ltd. : 274 ITR 336 (Mad)  CIT v. Hindustan Computers Ltd. : 233 ITR 366 (All)  ACIT and DCIT vs. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanti.T.A. No.2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Splendor Landbase Of Income, Central Vs. Limited, Circle-3, F-38/2, Splendor House, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 215/Del/2016 In I.T.A. No. 2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 M/S Splendor Landbase Assistant Commissioner Limited, Vs. Of Income, Central Circle- F-38/2, Splendor House, 3, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 32(2) unabsorbed depreciation of a year becomes part of depreciation of subsequent year by legal fiction and when it becomes part of the current year depreciation it was liable to be set off against any other income, irrespective of whether the earlier year’s return was filed in time or not.” Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

234 C of the Act has to be charged on the returned income of the assessee. Additional Grounds of appeal on deduction of depreciation on goodwill 34. Vide application dated 26.08.2014 the assessee has prayed to raise the following by way of additional ground of appeal. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the depreciation

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

234 C of the Act has to be charged on the returned income of the assessee. Additional Grounds of appeal on deduction of depreciation on goodwill 34. Vide application dated 26.08.2014 the assessee has prayed to raise the following by way of additional ground of appeal. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

depreciation under subsection (2) of Section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. (underlined portion was inserted by Finance Act, 2002 w.r.e.f. 1st July, 1995. Prior to its substitution, clause (c) read as under, ―(c) where

HARISH CHAND RAM KALI CHARITABLE TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee partly

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishiharish Chand Ram Kali Vs. The Addl Commissioner Of Charitable Trust Income Tax Kf-91, Kavi Nagar Range-1 Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Up Up Pan: Aath3018B (Appellant) (Respondent)

234] and held that hostel running and Mess running activity cannot be stated to be educational activity because educational activity Delhi Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd Vs. ITO, means systematic education. Thereafter he proceeded to examine the expenditure of the assessee on hostel and mess activities. Thereafter, he noted that assessee has claimed ₹ 37924668/– against hostel running expenses, however, actual

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

depreciation allowance while computing profits derived from a newly established undertaking. 2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the claim of the assessee which is contrary to section 32 has virtually taken exemption from payment of tax even for other business

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

depreciation allowance while computing profits derived from a newly established undertaking. 2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the claim of the assessee which is contrary to section 32 has virtually taken exemption from payment of tax even for other business

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

depreciation allowance while computing profits derived from a newly established undertaking. 2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the claim of the assessee which is contrary to section 32 has virtually taken exemption from payment of tax even for other business

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

depreciation allowance while computing profits derived from a newly established undertaking. 2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the claim of the assessee which is contrary to section 32 has virtually taken exemption from payment of tax even for other business

EXEVO INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

depreciation from current year business profits prior to Setting off brought forward business losses. 12 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP/AO have erred, by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Act without recording any adequate reasons for such initiation. 13 That on the facts and in the circumstances

DONALDSON INDIA FILTERS SYSTEMS PVT. LTD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 10(1)

234-D was also applied, simultaneously withdrawing proportionately the interest allowed under Section 244-A. The Assessing Officer directed penalty proceedings to be initiated separately under Section 271(1)(e) of 2015:DHC:489-DB ITA 86/2014 Page 3 Income Tax Act. 4. The CIT(A) in appeal by the assessee, however, found the re- assessment order to have been

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TALANGANG COOP GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD

The appeal stands dismissed in limine

Section 234 B being consequential, no interference was called for. Being of this view, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the appellate authority, the assessee approached the tribunal in second appeal. The tribunal noted the submission of the assessee and that of the revenue and placing reliance on Shree Parleshwar Co- op. Housing

M/S. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibg Exploration & Production Jcit, India Ltd, International Taxation, Bg House, Dehradun Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan:Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Bg Exploration & Production International Taxation, India Ltd, Bg House, Lake Dehradun Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Vs. Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan: Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation claimed on well- head platform. 4.1 Whether the Hon'ble DRP has erred in not appreciating the fact that well-head platforms are part of neither development operations nor drilling operations and therefore expenditure on well-head platforms are not covered u/s 42(1) of the Act and has B G Exploration & Production India Limited V DCIT