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

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

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation was claimed thereon @25% under section 32(1) of the Act. Further, expenditure on its improvement was incurred in subsequent

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

depreciation was claimed thereon @25% under section 32(1) of the Act. Further, expenditure on its improvement was incurred in subsequent

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

depreciation was claimed thereon @25% under section 32(1) of the Act. Further, expenditure on its improvement was incurred in subsequent

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

depreciation was claimed thereon @25% under section 32(1) of the Act. Further, expenditure on its improvement was incurred in subsequent

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

25 Assessee was required to give particulars as specified under Section 34 of the Act. With effect from 1.4.1988 Section 34 was deleted from the Statute book and, a consequential amendment was made in Section 32 of the Act. It was in this context that the Supreme Court had observed that the Assessee had an option to claim depreciation

KURUKSHETRA EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD,REWARI vs. DCIT CIRCLE, REWARI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2014-15

depreciation @25% under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act permits allowance of depreciation

AREVA T & D INDIA LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and

depreciation. It has also been noted by the tribunal that the said facts were stated by the Assessee in the audit report and the assessing officer had examined the audit report and also made queries and accepted the explanation proferred by the Assessee. The acceptance of the claim of the Assessee by the assessing officer would come in the compartment

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

depreciation claimed of Rs. 56,45,639/- @ 25% on Government Authorizations Of Rs. 4,41,66,706/- was shown. 4.2 According to the Assessing Officer above disclosure was not sufficient to meet the requirement of law (i.e. proviso to section

BSC C&C KURALI TOLL ROAD LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on such asset at the specified rate.” 12. Therefore, respectfully following the view expressed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Special Bench of this Tribunal, we hold that the assessee is eligible for depreciation @ 25

BSC C&C KURALI TOLL ROAD LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on such asset at the specified rate.” 12. Therefore, respectfully following the view expressed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Special Bench of this Tribunal, we hold that the assessee is eligible for depreciation @ 25

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation on the same at the rate of 25% under section 32(i)(ii) of the Act. 20. However, the claim

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

depreciation on such software license was to be claimed @ 25% as against 60% claimed by the Appellant. 12. The Ld. AO / Ld. DRP erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by making a disallowance of notional expenditure of Rs. 16,90,576 per provisions of section

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

depreciation on such software license was to be claimed @ 25% as against 60% claimed by the Appellant. 12. The Ld. AO / Ld. DRP erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by making a disallowance of notional expenditure of Rs. 16,90,576 per provisions of section

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

section 115JB of the Act. Consequently, Ground No. 3 is determined in favour of the taxpayer. GROUNDS NO.4 & 4.1 25. AO made addition of Rs.17,12,04,096/- as additional depreciation

ELEMENTION HEALTH & SPORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

depreciation @ 25% was claimed. 9. For that the Id CIT (A) erred in holding that explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Act was correctly

M/S. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

25 of PB) as under: Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT 9.0.8 It was argued that, since the assessee satisfied the relevant conditions for claim of additional depreciation under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

25 of PB) as under: Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT 9.0.8 It was argued that, since the assessee satisfied the relevant conditions for claim of additional depreciation under section

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

25. Having held that the claim under section 10A is only deduction and the same is not subjected to section 80AB of Chapter VI-A, now, let us consider whether the deduction so to be given under section 10A is undertaking specific or otherwise. 26. It can be noticed from the language of section 10A(1) that a deduction