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

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 or subsection (4) of section 35. Sub section (3) of section 72 provides

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Depreciation 2393 3 749 3145 Cairn U K Holdings Limited V DCIT ( International Taxation) New Delhi A Y 2007-08 P a g e | 34 Amortization 2242 -- 1620 3862 The segment assets and liabilities as at 31 December 2006 and capital expenditure for the year then ended are follows: Cairn India Capricorn Other Group 2006 Limited Energy Group Limited Group

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

3,06,889 on\nmotor vehicle.\n9. That the NFAC erred on facts and in not allowing depreciation on the ground that:\n(a) car was leased by T&T Motors Pvt. Ltd. and depreciation is admissible to the\nlessor and not the lessee; and (b) lessee of the car, in any case, was Hero MotoCorp\nLtd

SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation can be carried forward - Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, ss. 10(2)(vi), Prov. Cl. (b); 24(2), Prov. (b). Interpretation of statutes - Taxing statutes - Doubt - Assessee entitled to interpretation favourable to him. iv) CIT vs. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. [19971 226 ITR 625 (SC) Where there are two possible interpretations of a particular section which is akin

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

depreciation of Rs. 9,14,57,036/- following the arbitrary transfer pricing adjustment particularly when all the requisite details & documents were placed before the authorities with regard to purchase of capital assets and hence, the entire erroneous addition needs to be deleted.\n13. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). d. Disallowed excess claim of depreciation of Rs.29,63,061/-. Total income of assessee was assessed at Rs. 4,01,01,260/- vide order dated 23.03.2016 passed under Section 143(3

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

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

section 142(2A) while confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. 8.2 The ld. AR on queries raised by the Bench responded that assessee trust is not running shops or distribution of products and for those shoppings and distribution and selling of products, as on commercial basis different entity is there

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 13.05.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 13.05.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 13.05.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 13.05.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TX-IV vs. INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD.

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

2. The dispute in the present lis revolves around land bearing No.1, Man Singh Road, New Delhi ad-measuring 3.78 acres and the hotel building constructed thereon :‘Taj Man Singh Hotel’. The land had been allotted on a perpetual lease by the Government of India, L&DO (Land and Development) office vide allotment letter dated July

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

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

CIT vs. ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE LTD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

2(24)(xi), lO(lOD) and 37(1) of the Act in a proper perspective. He argued that as per the aforesaid Circular, the object of a keyman insurance policy is to enable business'organizations to insure the life of a keyman in order to' protect the business against the financial loss v\/hich may occur in the likely eventuality