COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VIII vs. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

250 of the Act. Subsequently, the assessment was revised under Section 147 of the Act to an income of ` 1,30,73,67,920/- by an order dated 16.03.2000, which was later modified under Section 154 by order dated 31.03.2000 reducing the income to ` 1,04,57,24,720/-. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, during the course of assessment proceedings

KAPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Kaplan India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No. 15, Circle-5(1), Okhla Industrial Estate-Iii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 (Pan: Aaics9919F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee : S/Shri Nageswar Rao, Sandeep S. Karhail, Adv. Shri Parth, Adv. Department By: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.03.2019

250(6) of the Act on the following grounds: Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may kindly be considered independent of each other. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 1. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(1), New Delhi (“AO”) / Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 250(6) of the Act. In the result, ground nos. 1 & 7 of the appeal is allowed and the ground\nnos. 2 to 6 of the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.\n8.\nGround nos. 8 to 11 of the appeal are against the disallowance on depreciation

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

6. Assessee is in appeal raising following grounds in A.Y. 2010-11 which cover the other year also:- “Ground No.1: The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - IV, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)') has erred in law and in the fact & circumstances of the case by passing the order dated 10.06.2014 under section 250 of the Income

PGF LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

6. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming :ve action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.4,81,650/- on account of business development expenses is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances

PGF LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

6. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.65,44,011/- on account of business development expenses is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PRASHA TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, department’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble:Asstt. Yrs: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-14(1), Vs. Prasha Technologies Ltd., New Delhi. J-1813 (Annexe), Chittranjan Park, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacp 3591 N ( Appellant ) (Respondent)

250/-. 4 Prasha Technologies Ltd. 7. As regards disallowance of depreciation, before ld. CIT(A), the assessee, inter alia, submitted as under: “It is submitted that during the course of proceedings the A.O. asked the assessee to provide copies of the additions to the fixed assets. The assessee filed copies of all the fixed assets except building. In the course

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD., GURGAON

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the above addition. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 52.1 It was contended by the learned AR that assessee has obtained unsecured loan from four parties. During the course of the hearing assessee filed all documents in respect of each of these parties. During

M/S. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the above addition. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 52.1 It was contended by the learned AR that assessee has obtained unsecured loan from four parties. During the course of the hearing assessee filed all documents in respect of each of these parties. During

TNG RETAILS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

depreciation. Sale price of fixed assets (old cars) can neither be treated as unexplained credit nor can be assessed as income from other sources liable to be taxed under section 115BBE of the Act. The tax treatment of the impugned addition under section 115BE of the Act is liable to be deleted in law. 6. The AO has erred

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

6. Based on the above stated submission he prayed that for the aforesaid cumulative reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee has rightly claimed depreciation on golf course as “plant”. 7. The LD DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. The main contention of the learned departmental representative was that AO has correctly allowed the depreciation considering

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

6. Based on the above stated submission he prayed that for the aforesaid cumulative reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee has rightly claimed depreciation on golf course as “plant”. 7. The LD DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. The main contention of the learned departmental representative was that AO has correctly allowed the depreciation considering

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

6. Based on the above stated submission he prayed that for the aforesaid cumulative reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee has rightly claimed depreciation on golf course as “plant”. 7. The LD DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. The main contention of the learned departmental representative was that AO has correctly allowed the depreciation considering

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

6. Based on the above stated submission he prayed that for the aforesaid cumulative reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee has rightly claimed depreciation on golf course as “plant”. 7. The LD DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. The main contention of the learned departmental representative was that AO has correctly allowed the depreciation considering

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

6. Based on the above stated submission he prayed that for the aforesaid cumulative reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee has rightly claimed depreciation on golf course as “plant”. 7. The LD DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. The main contention of the learned departmental representative was that AO has correctly allowed the depreciation considering

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

6. Based on the above stated submission he prayed that for the aforesaid cumulative reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee has rightly claimed depreciation on golf course as “plant”. 7. The LD DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. The main contention of the learned departmental representative was that AO has correctly allowed the depreciation considering

THE BANK OF TOKYO MISTUBISHI UFJ LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Before Mr. Bhavnesh Saini

depreciation That on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not allowing the set-off of brought forward losses amounting to Rs. 34,49,96,933/- against the taxable income of the subject assessment year in the impugned order. 2. Ground no. 1 is general in nature. Vide ground

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-1 vs. ALLIED STRIPS LTD

The appeals are dismissed

depreciation. The rate of minimum tax was kept at a modest figure deeming 30 per cent of book profits as total income. This modest amount is likely to go down further with the downward revision of corporate tax rate to 35 per cent and abolition of surcharge. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 45.4 The Act also inserts a new section 115JAA