M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 40(a)(i) are directed to be deleted. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal stand allowed. In view of this decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of assessee, the advance ruling relied on by the ld. DR does not help the revenue, as the said ruling is binding on that applicant and not upon the Tribunal u/s. 245S

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAGAN AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5382/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Circle 4(1) No. 14, Dda Transport Centre, New Delhi. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj7818F & C.O. No.220/Del/2012 (In Ita No. 5382/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09) M/S Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Acit, No.14, Dda Transport Centre, Vs Circle-4(1), Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aabcj7818F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Deepak Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019

249/- on account of excess stock instead of Rs.2,67,99,018/- surrendered on the date of survey. There was no change in the amount of Rs.13,98,903/- on account of excess cash offered to tax on the date of survey. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.85,46,152/- was offered to tax under the head ‘Income from Other Sources

PITNEY BOWES INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

4 of 13 allowance of depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding it. 6. It is in this backdrop that the present appeal is filed. Submitting that the non-compete fee, in the circumstances of this case, was to be treated as revenue expenditure and non-compete expenditure

PITNEY BOWES INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

4 of 13 allowance of depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding it. 6. It is in this backdrop that the present appeal is filed. Submitting that the non-compete fee, in the circumstances of this case, was to be treated as revenue expenditure and non-compete expenditure

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III

4. The Tribunal further rejected the appellant‟s claim for depreciation. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant/assessee that the Tribunal and the appellate Commissioner fell into error in holding that the amount of Rs.3 crores is non-competing fee, which constituted capital expenditure. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the judgment reported as Empire Jute

IMSI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5856/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 4277/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5744/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2506/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner C/O Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, Of Income Tax, Circle-2, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Dehradun, Uttranchal Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci1797A Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra Jain & Sh. Alok Kumar Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2007- 08 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Dehradun & The Other Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 09.02.2012, 20.12.2011 & 30.11.2012 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Dehradun For The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. 2. Since The Issue Involved Is Common In All These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

depreciation) of Rs.3,51,250/-. The AO asked the assessee to justify the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. In response, the assessee had given the following explanation: “Entitlement for deduction of profits u/s 80IC: 1. Activities of the company are covered under point 13 of Part C of the Fourteenth Schedule as mentioned in Sub- Section

IMSI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5856/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 4277/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5744/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2506/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Imsi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner C/O Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, Of Income Tax, Circle-2, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Dehradun, Uttranchal Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci1797A Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Sudhindra Jain & Sh. Alok Kumar Jain, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2007- 08 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Dehradun & The Other Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 09.02.2012, 20.12.2011 & 30.11.2012 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Dehradun For The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. 2. Since The Issue Involved Is Common In All These Appeals Which Were Heard Together So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

depreciation) of Rs.3,51,250/-. The AO asked the assessee to justify the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. In response, the assessee had given the following explanation: “Entitlement for deduction of profits u/s 80IC: 1. Activities of the company are covered under point 13 of Part C of the Fourteenth Schedule as mentioned in Sub- Section

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

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

4. The insertion of sec.14A was curative and declaratory of the intent of the Parliament. The basic principle of taxation is that only net income, namely, gross income minus expenditure that is taxable. Expenses incurred can be allowed only to the extent that they are relatable to the earning of taxable income (pages 22-23). The test which has been

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MOSER BAER INDIA LIMITED

The appeals are dismissed

depreciation of the previous years resulted in a negative income whereas in the present case the brought forward losses of earlier years was adjusted to result in a Nil income. 8. Appearing for the Assessee, Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned advocate drew our attention to the charging section which is Section 4 of the Act which reads as under: “Section 4

COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/s. OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD.

249 ITR 452]. The AO, however, was not impressed with this position taken by the assessee and disallowed the depreciation on Bhopal Unit which was in the sum of `43,41,528. 4. The appeal preferred by the assessee before the CIT(A) was rejected. 2010:DHC:6288-DB 5. Before the Tribunal, in further appeal, the assessee had submitted

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

4. The reference u/s. 92CA (1) of the Act was received by the TPO for determination of arms length price for the international transactions under taken by the appellant company. During the course of the transfer pricing assessment proceedings the TPO noticed that the assessee has paid Rs.24022522/- to its AE Aricent US market Inc on account of certain services

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

4. The reference u/s. 92CA (1) of the Act was received by the TPO for determination of arms length price for the international transactions under taken by the appellant company. During the course of the transfer pricing assessment proceedings the TPO noticed that the assessee has paid Rs.24022522/- to its AE Aricent US market Inc on account of certain services

SARAVJIT BHATIA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-11(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvajit Bhatia Income Tax Officer A-362, Dabua Colony, Pali Vs Ward – 11 (3) Road, Faridabad Faridabad Pan No.Akmpb4292K (Appellant) (Respondent)

249 taxman.com 470, the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT vide ITA No.2695/M/2017 order dated 07.09.2018 and various other decisions. So far as the merit of the case is concerned i.e. relating to deposit of cash and cheque in the bank account, he submitted that

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

4,23,739 Total 10,55,911 11.2 Further, the appellant is also entitled to claim depreciation of Rs. 6,98,81,906 including depreciation of Rs. 2,81,24,572 in relation to assets other than building). Reliance, in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jay Metal

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation and certain expenditure covered u/s 36 (1) (ix) of the act. It also prohibits allowance under sections 72, 73, 74 and 74A with respect to the losses carried forward. The ld AR has not addressed any argument on the facts of the case that when the assessee‟s income is taxed on gross basis as per rates adopted

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation of ₹ 360,503,983/– on plant and machinery leased various authorities even though the assessee was no more the owner and the lease agreement was in the nature of higher purchase agreement. v. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation of ₹ 360,503,983/– on plant and machinery leased various authorities even though the assessee was no more the owner and the lease agreement was in the nature of higher purchase agreement. v. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance

SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

4-.3.4 In support of contention that the requirement of furnishing the report of the accountant alongwith the return of income being procedural in nature strict compliance is not needed, reliance is placed on following judicial precedents amongst others: Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. [2015] 376 ITR 456 (SC) In this case, issue was regarding