DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

depreciation had been upheld, yet the High Court upheld the order of CIT(A)/Tribunal for deleting the penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) by making the following observations: "There was no material or evidence to show that the transaction of sale and lease back was not genuine or was bogus nor was any material brought on record in the course

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

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this then it will be deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The present case will fall under this explanation.” 16. On merits, the Assessing Officer, after discussing the scope and ambit of the provisions of Section 80-I, sub-section (1) and sub-section

M/S. VOITH PAPER GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

1) Where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained or future goods by description and goods of that description and in a deliverable state are unconditionally appropriated to the contract, either by the seller with the assent of the buyer or by the buyer with the assent of the seller, the property in the goods thereupon passes

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on enhanced value of goodwill is barred in terms of sixth proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. 2.8. Without prejudice, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, consideration amounting to Rs.43,36,58,490 received by the appellant for transfer of certain customer relationships to Aricent Technologies Mauritius Limited (‘ATML

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI vs. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on enhanced value of goodwill is barred in terms of sixth proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. 2.8. Without prejudice, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, consideration amounting to Rs.43,36,58,490 received by the appellant for transfer of certain customer relationships to Aricent Technologies Mauritius Limited (‘ATML

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on enhanced value of goodwill is barred in terms of sixth proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. 2.8. Without prejudice, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, consideration amounting to Rs.43,36,58,490 received by the appellant for transfer of certain customer relationships to Aricent Technologies Mauritius Limited (‘ATML

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on enhanced value of goodwill is barred in terms of sixth proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. 2.8. Without prejudice, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, consideration amounting to Rs.43,36,58,490 received by the appellant for transfer of certain customer relationships to Aricent Technologies Mauritius Limited (‘ATML

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on enhanced value of goodwill is barred in terms of sixth proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. 2.8. Without prejudice, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, consideration amounting to Rs.43,36,58,490 received by the appellant for transfer of certain customer relationships to Aricent Technologies Mauritius Limited (‘ATML

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on enhanced value of goodwill is barred in terms of sixth proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. 2.8. Without prejudice, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, consideration amounting to Rs.43,36,58,490 received by the appellant for transfer of certain customer relationships to Aricent Technologies Mauritius Limited (‘ATML

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

1 of the appeal of the assessee and ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 35. Ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to confirmation of the addition of security deposit received by the appellant over the years amounting to INR 3 40542851/–. The appellant, in the course of carrying

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

1 of the appeal of the assessee and ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 35. Ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to confirmation of the addition of security deposit received by the appellant over the years amounting to INR 3 40542851/–. The appellant, in the course of carrying

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

1 of the appeal of the assessee and ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 35. Ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to confirmation of the addition of security deposit received by the appellant over the years amounting to INR 3 40542851/–. The appellant, in the course of carrying

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

1 of the appeal of the assessee and ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 35. Ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to confirmation of the addition of security deposit received by the appellant over the years amounting to INR 3 40542851/–. The appellant, in the course of carrying

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

1 of the appeal of the assessee and ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 35. Ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to confirmation of the addition of security deposit received by the appellant over the years amounting to INR 3 40542851/–. The appellant, in the course of carrying

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

1 of the appeal of the assessee and ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 35. Ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to confirmation of the addition of security deposit received by the appellant over the years amounting to INR 3 40542851/–. The appellant, in the course of carrying

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation should be the amount incurred for acquisition of the asset as reduced by the cost met by any other person. He referred the following provisions of the Act: Section 43(1) of the Act defining ‘actual cost’ and Explanation 10 thereto reads as under: “43. Definitions of certain terms relevant to income from profits and gains of business

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SITASHRI TRADING & FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

depreciation made by the assessee. Cl T v. Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC) ; [2008] 218 CTR (SC) 359 ; [2008] 11 DTR (SC) 185 distinguished." 15. On the facts and circumstances we are of the view that the issue involved is squarely covered by Division Bench Decision of this court in the case of Aleo

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation in the net cash available with the assessee which is a non-cash flow item. Further assessee has submitted a cash flow statement which is placed at page number 23 of the paper book. The assessee has shown opening cash in hand of ₹ 517,397. To show the availability of the above cash as on 31st of March