PITNEY BOWES INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

section 32 is related to a class of rights which are intellectual property rights whereas the alleged payment is for non- compete fee. Accordingly, he denied depreciation on the “non-compete fee”, which is sustained as capital expenditure by the Tribunal and upheld by the Hon’ble High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6.2 On further appeal

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

27. Having held that the deduction under section -10A is not an exemption but only a deduction under Cbepter III of the Income-tax Act and the provisions of section 8OAB of Chapter VIA would not be applicable to such deduction under section 10A, and also that the deduction under section 10A is undertaking specific, we have to answer

CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 35AD of the Act; and clause (c) is a residuary clause in respect of assets which do not fall within clause (a) or clause (b) of Explanation 2. 26. In the present appeal we are concerned with the clause (a) which provides for determining the correct value of depreciable assets. 27

ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. RCUBE PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma Ita No. 6879/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16

27(iiib) and the assessee is deemed owner of the premises, therefore the provisions of section 22 i.e. income from house property are clearly applicable in the case of the assessee. The rental income received by the assessee will be covered under the provisions of section 22 i.e. income from house property. 3.2.3 I have carefully considered the submissions

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

section for entitling additional depreciation. 4. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of portfolio management expenditure of Rs. 27

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

section for entitling additional depreciation. 4. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of portfolio management expenditure of Rs. 27

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:

Section 92B of the Act with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002. Therefore, interest charged/not charged on outstanding receivables is an international transaction. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-2, Pune Vs Patni Computers System Pvt. Ltd. reported at 215 Taxman 108 (Mum.). The reliance was also placed

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:

Section 92B of the Act with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002. Therefore, interest charged/not charged on outstanding receivables is an international transaction. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-2, Pune Vs Patni Computers System Pvt. Ltd. reported at 215 Taxman 108 (Mum.). The reliance was also placed

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

section 2(1A) and various other provisions of the Income-tax Act, is that despite amalgamation, the business, enterprise and undertaking of the transferor or amalgamating company - which ceases to exist, after amalgamation, is treated as a continuing one, and any benefits, by way of carry forward of losses (of the transferor company), depreciation, etc., are allowed to the transferee

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

section 32( 1 )(ii) of the Act with reference to revised written down value of golf course, consistent with the finding of treating the golf course as „building‟ in earlier year(s).” 17. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether golf course is a plant or building. We have already decided this in appeal of the assessee

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

section 32( 1 )(ii) of the Act with reference to revised written down value of golf course, consistent with the finding of treating the golf course as „building‟ in earlier year(s).” 17. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether golf course is a plant or building. We have already decided this in appeal of the assessee

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

section 32( 1 )(ii) of the Act with reference to revised written down value of golf course, consistent with the finding of treating the golf course as „building‟ in earlier year(s).” 17. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether golf course is a plant or building. We have already decided this in appeal of the assessee

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

section 32( 1 )(ii) of the Act with reference to revised written down value of golf course, consistent with the finding of treating the golf course as „building‟ in earlier year(s).” 17. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether golf course is a plant or building. We have already decided this in appeal of the assessee

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

section 32( 1 )(ii) of the Act with reference to revised written down value of golf course, consistent with the finding of treating the golf course as „building‟ in earlier year(s).” 17. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether golf course is a plant or building. We have already decided this in appeal of the assessee

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

section 32( 1 )(ii) of the Act with reference to revised written down value of golf course, consistent with the finding of treating the golf course as „building‟ in earlier year(s).” 17. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether golf course is a plant or building. We have already decided this in appeal of the assessee

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III

depreciable intangible asset. As discussed earlier, each of the species of 2012:DHC:6705-DB ITA-492-12 Page 13 rights spelt-out in Section 32(1)(ii), i.e. know-how, patent, copyright, trademark, license or franchise as or any other right of a similar kind which confers a business or commercial or any other business or commercial right

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ATUL MEHTA, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

depreciation of Rs.38,25,000/- under section 57 on the amenities and services; 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, whether ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was correct in holding that cash expenses of Rs.2,15,600/- have been incurred in relation to earning of “income from other sources” and hence allowable, whereas

JX NIPPON TWO LUBRICANTS INDIA PVT. LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4985/Del/2019 :Asstt. Year : 2015-16 & Sa No. 985/Del/2019 :Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Jx Nippon Two Lubricants India Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd., Unit No. 1003, 10Th Floor, Vatika Circle-2(1), City Point, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcj3601L Assessee By :Sh. Nageswarrao, Adv. Revenue By:Sh. Vedprakash Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing:13.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2021

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, the depreciation has been rightly claimed. 27. Heard the arguments of both the parties