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

section 32(2) given by the assessee will not apply in cases where an assessee claims special deduction 2008:DHC:2521 ITA No. 579-07 Page 24 of 25 under Chapter VI-A. The matter can be looked at from another angle. While computing normal income, an assessee may set off depreciation

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

24. In our considered opinion, the contention that additional depreciation is an incentive and not depreciation has no legal legs to stand. It can be noticed that section

B4S SOLUTION P.LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

24. The relevant findings read as under: “40. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO/TPO/DRP and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find, the AO, in the instant case, disallowed depreciation on goodwill on the ground

PURI OIL MILLS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

depreciable assets. The Assessing Officer also referred to a fact of insertion of sub-clause (xviii) in section 2(24

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJAN NANDA

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

depreciation as tax planning. 24. Rebutting the arguments of Mr. Sahni, predicated on the alleged violation of terms of scheme of keyman insurance policy by assigning the same to the kayman, it was argued that no such contention was ever raised before the Authorities below. Even otherwise, the insurance company had accepted the assignment. So much so, even the Department

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJAN NANDA

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

depreciation as tax planning. 24. Rebutting the arguments of Mr. Sahni, predicated on the alleged violation of terms of scheme of keyman insurance policy by assigning the same to the kayman, it was argued that no such contention was ever raised before the Authorities below. Even otherwise, the insurance company had accepted the assignment. So much so, even the Department

CIT vs. ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE LTD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

depreciation as tax planning. 24. Rebutting the arguments of Mr. .Sahni, predicated on the alleged violation of terms of scheme of keyman insurance policy by assigning the same to the kayman, it was argued that no such contention was ever raised before the , Authorities below. Even otherwise, the insurance company had accepted, the assignment. So much so, even the Department

CIT vs. ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE LTD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

depreciation as tax planning. 24. Rebutting the arguments of Mr. .Sahni, predicated on the alleged violation of terms of scheme of keyman insurance policy by assigning the same to the kayman, it was argued that no such contention was ever raised before the , Authorities below. Even otherwise, the insurance company had accepted, the assignment. So much so, even the Department

M/s Lavish Apartment (P.) Ltd

depreciation. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the Assessing Officer refused to accept the assessee‟s claim for set-off of the brought forward business loss from the assessment year 1994-95 against the income for the assessment year 1995-96 by way of rent, car and computer hire charges and the commission income. 9. The assessee carried the matter

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 45 of the 1961 Act. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside.” 24. When the matter is considered in the aforesaid perspective, one can clearly discern that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the Revenue would have no application in the instant case. Commonwealth Trust Limited (supra) was a case where ITA Nos.417

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 24(a) of the Act. Ground No. 5: Without prejudice to the above grounds, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance amounting to Rs. 2,81,24,572 on account of depreciation

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

depreciation prior to claiming deduction under section 10B of the Act in my view does not arise at all. I agree with the contention of the appellant that facts of the instant case are distinguishable from the facts of the cited case and hold that the decision of Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of Himmatsingkie Siede Ud.(supra

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

Section 45 of the 1961 Act. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside.” 24. When the matter is considered in the aforesaid perspective, one can clearly discern that the judgments cited by the learned l f th R ld h li ti i th i t t 2010:DHC:6300-DB the assessee was possessed of considerable property at Calicut

CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

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

Section 50B ITA 1003/2011 Page 24 of 31 of the Act, the same exhaust all categories of assets. Insofar as depreciable

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

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

24, Akbar Road have been made during the year. Since the building is on rent from Government of India and the ownership does not vest in AICC, the amount spent on additions has been charged as depreciation during the year. 3. Certain Committees have prepared their final accounts in the form of receipt and payment account. Hence while drawing

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

24, Akbar Road have been made during the year. Since the building is on rent from Government of India and the ownership does not vest in AICC, the amount spent on additions has been charged as depreciation during the year. 3. Certain Committees have prepared their final accounts in the form of receipt and payment account. Hence while drawing

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)

depreciated. In other words, Rs.60,000/- is to be treated as application of money for the purpose of clause a to Section 11(1)." Thereafter, reference was made to the following quotation from the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Society of the Sisters of St. Anne (supra) : "It is clear from the above provisions that the income derived