PMV MALTINGS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee for ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

8. The aforesaid submission, however, clearly loses sight of the fact that section 47 in express terms excludesthe transfer of a capital asset in terms of Page 10 of 19 ITA Nos. 3103 & 6906/Del/2019 a scheme of amalgamation. We further find that the provisions of theAct referred to by learned counsel for the appellant are placed in a Chapter dealing

PMV MALTINGS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee for ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

8. The aforesaid submission, however, clearly loses sight of the fact that section 47 in express terms excludesthe transfer of a capital asset in terms of Page 10 of 19 ITA Nos. 3103 & 6906/Del/2019 a scheme of amalgamation. We further find that the provisions of theAct referred to by learned counsel for the appellant are placed in a Chapter dealing

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 115J of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in not enhancing book profit by amount of depreciation on revalued assets in light of CBDT letter No. 385/96/88-IT(8) dated 31.01.89 as well as SLP reported in 212 ITR 61 pending on issue involved

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 115J of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in not enhancing book profit by amount of depreciation on revalued assets in light of CBDT letter No. 385/96/88-IT(8) dated 31.01.89 as well as SLP reported in 212 ITR 61 pending on issue involved

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 115J of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in not enhancing book profit by amount of depreciation on revalued assets in light of CBDT letter No. 385/96/88-IT(8) dated 31.01.89 as well as SLP reported in 212 ITR 61 pending on issue involved

M/S. KEI INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.3

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.

8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The stand of the assessee since the beginning had been that FCCBs proceeds were for setting-up new project for manufacture of wire has not been 20 ITA.No.1433/D/2014, CO.No.200/D/2017, CO.No.34/D/2019 in ITA.No.3564/D/2015 & ITA.No.528/D/2016 M/s. K.E.I. Industries Ltd., New Delhi. disputed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. K.E.I. INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.3

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.

8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The stand of the assessee since the beginning had been that FCCBs proceeds were for setting-up new project for manufacture of wire has not been 20 ITA.No.1433/D/2014, CO.No.200/D/2017, CO.No.34/D/2019 in ITA.No.3564/D/2015 & ITA.No.528/D/2016 M/s. K.E.I. Industries Ltd., New Delhi. disputed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING CO. LTD.

The Appeals are disposed of in the above terms without any order on costs

8 read with section 6(ii) of the Act. Similarly, dividends from shares will be shown under section I2(1A) and not under section 10. If an assessee carries on business of purchasing and selling buildings, the profits and gains earned by transactions in buildings will be shown under section 10, but income received from the buildings so long

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

8) of Section 80IA of the Act.\n60. In view of the above, the questions of law are answered in favour of the\nAssessee and against the Revenue.”\n16. Thus, by respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble High\nCourt and Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of\nassessee itself and also by respectfully following the judgement

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

8) of Section 80IA of the Act.\n60. In view of the above, the questions of law are answered in favour of the\nAssessee and against the Revenue.”\n16. Thus, by respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble High\nCourt and Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of\nassessee itself and also by respectfully following the judgement

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

8) of Section 80IA of the Act.\n\n60. In view of the above, the questions of law are answered in favour of the\nAssessee and against the Revenue.”\n\n16. Thus, by respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble High\nCourt and Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of\nassessee itself and also by respectfully following

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

8) of Section 80IA of the Act.\n\n60. In view of the above, the questions of law are answered in favour of the\nAssessee and against the Revenue.”\n\n16. Thus, by respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble High\nCourt and Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of\nassessee itself and also by respectfully following

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:

8 ITR (Trib.) 525 (Bang.) 22. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the receivable represented continuing debit balances and revealed that the payment, even though due had not be made by the debtor. However, the exact nature

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:

8 ITR (Trib.) 525 (Bang.) 22. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the receivable represented continuing debit balances and revealed that the payment, even though due had not be made by the debtor. However, the exact nature

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

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

8. Our Lady of Immaculate Conception of Panjim 15000 Church 9. Police station, Sanquelim 2000 10. Police Station, Bicholim 3000 11. Shri Bhanu Talim Sansthan, Miraj 50000 12. Teri Summit, 2014 350000 13. Spandan Foundation 50000 14. Magic Bus India Foundation 500000 15. Sahachari Foundation 2,00000 16. Shiv Ganga Project 2500000 17. Swargheeya Sanji Bhai Rupji Bhai Memorial Trust

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

depreciation in respect of assets which were acquired by the assessee and put to use on the same date i.e. 0n 31.03.2019 ignoring the material fact that the assessee itself had claimed only 50% of the deprecation. 10. That the appellant seeks leave to add, amend, alter, abandon or substitute any of the above grounds during the hearing

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

depreciation’. 7. The revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 5989/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exploration and development expenditure of Rs. 8,79,43,82,537/- which had been disallowed by the AO on the ground

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBONS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

depreciation’. 7. The revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 5989/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exploration and development expenditure of Rs. 8,79,43,82,537/- which had been disallowed by the AO on the ground