ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation) Addition during the year is shown Rs. 32347187/- Total value as on 31.3.2009 shown by assessee is Rs. 15,25,57,0847-. The above advance given for Rs. 2,60,51,0007- is not included in the cost of construction. The above advance is not allowable under section 11(5) of the Act in view of the fact that

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD vs. PRAHLAD, PALWAL

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 145(3) of the Income Tax Ad. 1961 which was forwarded to the Range Head on the very same day. The Range Head of this unit on 27.00.2022 has given the following directions u/s 144A of the Act. 1. Being the data of High Risk Billers received from the CBIC and the CASS Rationale highlighted to verify the genuineness

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 139(5). Return filed u/s 139 (3) if in accordance with the other provisions of the filing of the loss return for the provisions of the act shall apply to that return as if it were return under subsection (1) of the act. The learned Commissioner of income tax Appeals by considering the above claim of the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 139(5). Return filed u/s 139 (3) if in accordance with the other provisions of the filing of the loss return for the provisions of the act shall apply to that return as if it were return under subsection (1) of the act. The learned Commissioner of income tax Appeals by considering the above claim of the assessee

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

3 of the chart gives the cost of acquisition as shown by the assessee and column 4 of the chart shows the depreciation claimed by the assessee. As per the chart, except for depreciation on building, the assessee himself has claimed depreciation at half rate. ii) Second proviso to section

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

3 of the chart gives the cost of acquisition as shown by the assessee and column 4 of the chart shows the depreciation claimed by the assessee. As per the chart, except for depreciation on building, the assessee himself has claimed depreciation at half rate. ii) Second proviso to section

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

3 of the chart gives the cost of acquisition as shown by the assessee and column 4 of the chart shows the depreciation claimed by the assessee. As per the chart, except for depreciation on building, the assessee himself has claimed depreciation at half rate. ii) Second proviso to section

M/S. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

3 of the chart gives the cost of acquisition as shown by the assessee and column 4 of the chart shows the depreciation claimed by the assessee. As per the chart, except for depreciation on building, the assessee himself has claimed depreciation at half rate. ii) Second proviso to section

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

depreciation on the non-compete fee. The reassessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 and 254 of the Act on 09/12/2011

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

3,73,94,73,776/- without considering the Transfer Pricing Study of the assessee company and by wrongly computing the Arm's Length Price by adopting incorrect comparable as against the genuine comparable adopted by the assessee company in its Transfer Pricing Study and hence, the said erroneous addition needs to be deleted.\n12. That on the facts

ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 13(3) of the Act and denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 5. From the aforesaid grounds raised by the department it would be clear that the main grievance of the department in this appeal relates to action of the ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction on account of depreciation

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 13(3) of the Act and denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 5. From the aforesaid grounds raised by the department it would be clear that the main grievance of the department in this appeal relates to action of the ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction on account of depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJAN NANDA

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

3) of the Scheme states that “Assignment not allowed except absolute assignment in favour of kayman in case of his leaving the job of the company”. Clause 4(e) on the same page reads as under: “The following endorsement shall be placed on the policy for which prior consent from the employer should be obtained before the completion

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJAN NANDA

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

3) of the Scheme states that “Assignment not allowed except absolute assignment in favour of kayman in case of his leaving the job of the company”. Clause 4(e) on the same page reads as under: “The following endorsement shall be placed on the policy for which prior consent from the employer should be obtained before the completion

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 34, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.‖ 13. In view of this, we dismiss ground number [1] of the appeal of the learned assessing officer. 14. The second [2] ground of appeal is against the order of the learned CIT Appeal in reducing the disallowance of software expenses from

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 34, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.‖ 13. In view of this, we dismiss ground number [1] of the appeal of the learned assessing officer. 14. The second [2] ground of appeal is against the order of the learned CIT Appeal in reducing the disallowance of software expenses from

J.D. WINES,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

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

section as per proviso to Sec 40A(3). (b) Without prejudice to above the appellant disputes that the quantum of addition confirmed is on higher side. 4.(a) That the ld CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the ground of appeal regarding disallowance of depreciation

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

3), the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) were attracted with the result that the assessee could not be allowed the exemption under Section 11. 5. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer also noted that the assessee claimed to have received corpus donation of Rs.1.5 crores from one S. Jagjit Singh, S/o. S. Bachan Singh