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

288 certifying that the deduction has been correctly claimed in accordance with the provisions of this clause. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— XXX (2) "installed capacity" means the capacity of production as existing on the 31st day of March, 2002” 9.0.3 It was argued by the Ld. AR that the language of the aforesaid section is plain

CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

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

288, indicating the computation of the net worth of the undertaking or division, as the case may be, and certifying that the net worth of the undertaking or division, as the case may be, has been correctly arrived at in accordance with the provisions of this section. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, “net worth” shall

M/S. SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

288 giving such particulars in the report as may be prescribed. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, the expressions, - (i) "additional wages" means the wages paid to the new regular workmen in excess of one hundred workmen employed during the previous year: (ii) "regular workman", does not include- (a) a casual workman; or (b) a workman employed through contract

SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

288 giving such particulars in the report as may be prescribed. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, the expressions, - (i) "additional wages" means the wages paid to the new regular workmen in excess of one hundred workmen employed during the previous year: (ii) "regular workman", does not include- (a) a casual workman; or (b) a workman employed through contract

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

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

288 (2) of the Act. 9. A further proviso to Section 13A was inserted by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2003 (Act 46 of 2003) which stated that on failure by ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 7 of 71 a political party to submit a report under Section 29C (3) of the RP Act for a financial year

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

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

288 (2) of the Act. 9. A further proviso to Section 13A was inserted by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2003 (Act 46 of 2003) which stated that on failure by ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 7 of 71 a political party to submit a report under Section 29C (3) of the RP Act for a financial year

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

288 (2) of the Act. 9. A further proviso to Section 13A was inserted by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2003 (Act 46 of 2003) which stated that on failure by 2016:DHC:2463-DB ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 7 of 71 a political party to submit a report under Section

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 of the Act. It is not even necessary to deal with this aspect in detail with reference to the various judgments, inasmuch as judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka v. Karnataka Power Corporation [2002(9) SCC 571] clinches the issue. Therein the Court has taken into consideration the earlier judgments on which some reliance

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 of the Act. It is not even necessary to deal with this aspect in detail with reference to the various judgments, inasmuch as judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka v. Karnataka Power Corporation [2002(9) SCC 571] clinches the issue. Therein the Court has taken into consideration the earlier judgments on which some reliance

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 of the Act. It is not even necessary to deal with this aspect in detail with reference to the various judgments, inasmuch as judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka v. Karnataka Power Corporation [2002(9) SCC 571] clinches the issue. Therein the Court has taken into consideration the earlier judgments on which some reliance

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 of the Act. It is not even necessary to deal with this aspect in detail with reference to the various judgments, inasmuch as judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka v. Karnataka Power Corporation [2002(9) SCC 571] clinches the issue. Therein the Court has taken into consideration the earlier judgments on which some reliance

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 of the Act. It is not even necessary to deal with this aspect in detail with reference to the various judgments, inasmuch as judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka v. Karnataka Power Corporation [2002(9) SCC 571] clinches the issue. Therein the Court has taken into consideration the earlier judgments on which some reliance

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 of the Act. It is not even necessary to deal with this aspect in detail with reference to the various judgments, inasmuch as judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka v. Karnataka Power Corporation [2002(9) SCC 571] clinches the issue. Therein the Court has taken into consideration the earlier judgments on which some reliance

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

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

Section 37 of the act may be prospective, but at the same time, assessee had to justify the claim of expenditure being spent on CSR. Details mentioned hereinabove do not justify the claim of expenditure on account of commercial expediency. Considering the claim from all possible angles, we do not find any merit in such claim of expenditure. Disallowance

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

depreciation allowance shall be the allowance for that year. It means that in the following year the assessee need not carryon any business or profession for availing of benefits of sub-section (2) of section 32. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Premchand Jute Mills Ltd. [1986] 56 CTR (Cal.) 225/[1987] 164 ITR 288

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

depreciation allowance shall be the allowance for that year. It means that in the following year the assessee need not carryon any business or profession for availing of benefits of sub-section (2) of section 32. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Premchand Jute Mills Ltd. [1986] 56 CTR (Cal.) 225/[1987] 164 ITR 288

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GLF LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Glf Lifestyle Pvt.Ltd., Circle-10(1), Flat No.3A/1, Taj Apartment, C.R.Building, Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aaecg3087E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.12.2021

depreciation was allowed: a) Areva T & D India Ltd v DClT (2012) 345 ITR 421 (Del) b) Triune Energy Services (P.) Ltd. vs DClT [2016] 65 taxmann.com 288 (Delhi)/[2016] 237 Taxman 230 (Delhi) c) Cyber India Online Ltd .v. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax [2014] 64 SOT 1 (Delhi Trib.)(URO) d) Minda Acoustic Ltd. v .Additional Commissioner

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation. In view of this ground number [2] of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 30. Ground number [3] of the appeal of the assessee is against the order of the learned CIT – A in not allowing the interest income earned amounting to ₹ 44,41,951 as part of the business income claimed by the appellant company. The learned