HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IV, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

depreciation in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 18. So, following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case (supra), we are of the considered view that AO/CIT(A) have erred in disallowing the claim by the assessee company in respect of plant and machinery used below the ground of field

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

depreciation in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 18. So, following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case (supra), we are of the considered view that AO/CIT(A) have erred in disallowing the claim by the assessee company in respect of plant and machinery used below the ground of field

M/S. HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

depreciation in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 18. So, following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case (supra), we are of the considered view that AO/CIT(A) have erred in disallowing the claim by the assessee company in respect of plant and machinery used below the ground of field

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

depreciation in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 18. So, following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case (supra), we are of the considered view that AO/CIT(A) have erred in disallowing the claim by the assessee company in respect of plant and machinery used below the ground of field

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

depreciation in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 18. So, following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case (supra), we are of the considered view that AO/CIT(A) have erred in disallowing the claim by the assessee company in respect of plant and machinery used below the ground of field

HLS ASIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

depreciation in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 18. So, following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case (supra), we are of the considered view that AO/CIT(A) have erred in disallowing the claim by the assessee company in respect of plant and machinery used below the ground of field

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

255, the assessee had 100% Export Oriented Undertaking eligible for deduction under section 10B of the Act. The undertaking was set up in the assessment year 1988-89. The assessee, however, claimed deduction for five consecutive years from assessment year 1992-93. The year under consideration before the Hon Court was assessment year 1994-95. The assessee had unabsorbed depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI -II vs. KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

255, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held that, ―Section 10B cannot be read in isolation of other provisions. It is only an exemption provision. It may be true that even after taking into consideration the unabsorbed depreciation, the Assessee may get exemption but nonetheless it could not take only a portion of depreciation just to suit its income

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:

255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.”The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 40. We, therefore, by keeping in view the ratio laid

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:

255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.”The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 40. We, therefore, by keeping in view the ratio laid

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

depreciation is also covered in assessee’s favour by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 and as 11 I.T.A.Nos. 2196, 6459/D/2012 5916, 6549/D/2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2009-10 reported in 355 ITR 188 (Del). The Ld. AR also submitted that ground no. 7 of assessee

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

depreciation is also covered in assessee’s favour by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 and as 11 I.T.A.Nos. 2196, 6459/D/2012 5916, 6549/D/2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2009-10 reported in 355 ITR 188 (Del). The Ld. AR also submitted that ground no. 7 of assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

depreciation is also covered in assessee’s favour by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 and as 11 I.T.A.Nos. 2196, 6459/D/2012 5916, 6549/D/2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2009-10 reported in 355 ITR 188 (Del). The Ld. AR also submitted that ground no. 7 of assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

depreciation is also covered in assessee’s favour by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 and as 11 I.T.A.Nos. 2196, 6459/D/2012 5916, 6549/D/2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2009-10 reported in 355 ITR 188 (Del). The Ld. AR also submitted that ground no. 7 of assessee

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S JUBLIANT ORGANOSYS LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

4. The first ground of appeal of learned AO is that learned CIT – A has erred in law and on facts in case in directing learned AO not to enhance book profit by a sum of INR 10540000/- which represents depreciation on revalued assets for purpose of section 115JA of income tax act 1961. Second ground is also related

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

4. The first ground of appeal of learned AO is that learned CIT – A has erred in law and on facts in case in directing learned AO not to enhance book profit by a sum of INR 10540000/- which represents depreciation on revalued assets for purpose of section 115JA of income tax act 1961. Second ground is also related

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, MORADABAD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

4. The first ground of appeal of learned AO is that learned CIT – A has erred in law and on facts in case in directing learned AO not to enhance book profit by a sum of INR 10540000/- which represents depreciation on revalued assets for purpose of section 115JA of income tax act 1961. Second ground is also related

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

255, the assessee had 100% Export Oriented Undertaking eligible for deduction under section 10B of the Act. The undertaking was set up in the assessment year 1988-89. The assessee, however, claimed deduction for five consecutive years from assessment year 1992-93. The year under consideration before the Hon Court was assessment year 1994-95. The assessee had unabsorbed depreciation