JUBILANT CHEMSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

depreciation and bonus paid for A.Y. 2010-11. Ld. AO also observed that assessee had approval from Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, and was entitled to claim deduction under section 80 IB (8A) of the Act. Ld.AO thus called upon assessee to furnish relevant details in respect of claims made by assessee in its accounts and computation of income

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

depreciation and bonus paid for A.Y. 2010-11. Ld. AO also observed that assessee had approval from Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, and was entitled to claim deduction under section 80 IB (8A) of the Act. Ld.AO thus called upon assessee to furnish relevant details in respect of claims made by assessee in its accounts and computation of income

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

depreciation and bonus paid for A.Y. 2010-11. Ld. AO also observed that assessee had approval from Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, and was entitled to claim deduction under section 80 IB (8A) of the Act. Ld.AO thus called upon assessee to furnish relevant details in respect of claims made by assessee in its accounts and computation of income

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

depreciation and bonus paid for A.Y. 2010-11. Ld. AO also observed that assessee had approval from Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, and was entitled to claim deduction under section 80 IB (8A) of the Act. Ld.AO thus called upon assessee to furnish relevant details in respect of claims made by assessee in its accounts and computation of income

JUBILANT CHEMSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

depreciation and bonus paid for A.Y. 2010-11. Ld. AO also observed that assessee had approval from Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, and was entitled to claim deduction under section 80 IB (8A) of the Act. Ld.AO thus called upon assessee to furnish relevant details in respect of claims made by assessee in its accounts and computation of income

JUBILANT CHEMSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

depreciation and bonus paid for A.Y. 2010-11. Ld. AO also observed that assessee had approval from Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, and was entitled to claim deduction under section 80 IB (8A) of the Act. Ld.AO thus called upon assessee to furnish relevant details in respect of claims made by assessee in its accounts and computation of income

JUBILANT CHEMSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

depreciation and bonus paid for A.Y. 2010-11. Ld. AO also observed that assessee had approval from Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, and was entitled to claim deduction under section 80 IB (8A) of the Act. Ld.AO thus called upon assessee to furnish relevant details in respect of claims made by assessee in its accounts and computation of income

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

depreciation and bonus paid for A.Y. 2010-11. Ld. AO also observed that assessee had approval from Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, and was entitled to claim deduction under section 80 IB (8A) of the Act. Ld.AO thus called upon assessee to furnish relevant details in respect of claims made by assessee in its accounts and computation of income

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

depreciation. 4. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of portfolio management expenditure of Rs. 27,68,039 on the ground that the same related to investment activity of the appellant. 4.1 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing the alternate claim of the appellant for deduction

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

depreciation. 4. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of portfolio management expenditure of Rs. 27,68,039 on the ground that the same related to investment activity of the appellant. 4.1 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing the alternate claim of the appellant for deduction

NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

section 251(2) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is not empowered to New Mangalore Port Road Company Ltd. dismiss the appeal summarily. Facts of this case is quite different. Therefore, in view of the facts in entirety and in the interest of justice, we find it fit that this case requires to be remanded back

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

depreciation corresponding to actual date of put to use (date of capitalization of telecom sites) overlooking the fact that RFAI notice generation date cannot be held to be the date on which the asset is put to use. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2542/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18 Hero Fincop Ltd., 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) C. R. Building, New Delhi-110002 अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Pan:Aaach0157J Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Aggarwal Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On 16.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of ‘Hire Purchase Leasing & Finance'. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/(First Appellate Authority Hereinafter Referred As “Faa”), Delhi Dated 27.03.2024 Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2019For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Of Provision For Collection Charges -Rs. 9,75,00,000/-

sections 250(6)/ 251(1) of the Act. Disallowance of depreciation on car -Rs. 3,06,889/- 8. That the NFAC

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 vs. ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAGPUR) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

251 ITR 99, it is seen that the same is not applicable in the present case because the appellant itself offered the withdrawal of depreciation, which was even not detected by the then AO in the first round of scrutiny proceedings. All the facts regarding claim of depreciation on road was clearly mentioned in the details submitted by the appellant

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. MOTOROLA INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishimotorola India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Acit, Motorola Excellence Centre, Gurgaon Circle, 415/2, Sector-14, Mg Road, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Motorola India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon Circle, Motorola Excellence Centre, Gurgaon 415/2, Sector-14, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Motorola Solutions India (P) Ltd, Vs. Acit, 415/2, Motorola Excellence Gurgaon Circle, Centre, Mg Road, Haryana Gurgaon Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Motorola Solutions India (P) Gurgaon Circle, Ltd, Gurgaon 415/2, Motorola Excellence Centre, Mg Road, Haryana Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv Shri Suvinay K. Dash, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 24/08/2018

depreciation and 90% of gross interest income without reducing interest expenses relatable thereto. 9. That the Hon‟ble CIT (Appeals) erred in following the order passed by the Ld. AO with respect to transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,46,28,379/-, the same being arbitrary, contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 9.1 That

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI, CR BUILDING vs. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, GURGRAM

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

depreciation corresponding to actual date of put to use (date of capitalization of telecom sites) overlooking the fact that RFAI notice generation date cannot be held to be the date on which the asset is put to use. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 vs. ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAGPUR) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

251 ITR 99, it is seen that the same is not applicable in the present case because the appellant itself offered the withdrawal of depreciation, which was even not detected by the then AO in the first round of scrutiny proceedings. All the facts regarding claim of depreciation on road was clearly mentioned in the details submitted by the appellant

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

depreciation is Rs. 2,79,854/- and thus its disallowance Rs. 4,83,994/- was not justified. b] Photocopy of the purchase invoice for an addition held amounting to Rs. 8,59,640/- in the relevant Asstt. Year. 12. a] Copy of Profit & Loss Account for the ending 31/03/08 and Balance Sheet as on that of Swaran Wood Products