DABUR INDIA LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: We Consider The Submissions Made In Support Of The Appeal The Following Facts Require To Be Noted:- 2.1 The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Herbal Products & Cosmetics. On 30.11.2000 Assessee Filed Its Return For Assessment Year 2000-01 Wherein, It Declared An Income Of Rs 12,15,25,093/-. On 10.5.2001 The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Act As The Returned Income. However, Notices Were Issued Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. 2.2 In Response To The Aforesaid Notices, Hearing Was Attended By An Authorized Representative Before The Assessing Officer. 2008:Dhc:2521

depreciation subject to the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 72 and sub-Section (3) of Section 73 of the Act. Sections 30, 31

CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

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

31 Section. The aforesaid decision would have no applicability to determine the value of depreciable assets under Section 50B of the Act as the said

M/s. Bharat Gears Limited vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central I

depreciation @ 12.5%. According to him, it was evident not only from the quantum of expenditure, which was huge, while reconditioning the machine various spare parts were replaced. The assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer and the matter was re-examined by CIT(A) in appeal who held otherwise. He was of the view that expenditure was of revenue

VEDANTA LTD (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LTD),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

Depreciation 180,40,27,029/- 6850,01,87,820/- disallowed under UOP method Taxable Book Profit u/s 6850,01,87,820/- 115JB Tax Payable Basic @ 18.5% 1267,25,34,747/- Add : Surcharge @ 5% 63,36,26,737/- Add : Education Cess 3% 39,91,84,845/- Total Tax Payable under 1370,53,46,329/- MAT 11. So, the AO assessed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S HI LINE PENS P.LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

31(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Whereas it is Section 10(2)(ii) of the 1922 Act which is similar to the provisions of Section 30(a)(i), which is applicable in the present case. Both, Section 10(2)(ii) of the 1922 Act and Section 30(a)(i) of the 1961 Act, speak only of „repairs

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

depreciation claimed on toll bridge - Rs. 15.97 crores 19. Before embarking upon the merits of each issue, it would be pertinent to understand the powers of enhancement conferred upon the ld. CIT(A) by provisions of Section 251 of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 251(1a) read as under: “In disposing of the appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

depreciation claimed on toll bridge - Rs. 15.97 crores 19. Before embarking upon the merits of each issue, it would be pertinent to understand the powers of enhancement conferred upon the ld. CIT(A) by provisions of Section 251 of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 251(1a) read as under: “In disposing of the appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

depreciation claimed on toll bridge - Rs. 15.97 crores 19. Before embarking upon the merits of each issue, it would be pertinent to understand the powers of enhancement conferred upon the ld. CIT(A) by provisions of Section 251 of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 251(1a) read as under: “In disposing of the appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

depreciation claimed on toll bridge - Rs. 15.97 crores 19. Before embarking upon the merits of each issue, it would be pertinent to understand the powers of enhancement conferred upon the ld. CIT(A) by provisions of Section 251 of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 251(1a) read as under: “In disposing of the appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

depreciation claimed on toll bridge - Rs. 15.97 crores 19. Before embarking upon the merits of each issue, it would be pertinent to understand the powers of enhancement conferred upon the ld. CIT(A) by provisions of Section 251 of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 251(1a) read as under: “In disposing of the appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

depreciation claimed on toll bridge - Rs. 15.97 crores 19. Before embarking upon the merits of each issue, it would be pertinent to understand the powers of enhancement conferred upon the ld. CIT(A) by provisions of Section 251 of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 251(1a) read as under: “In disposing of the appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

31. A recent amendment to section 139(5) reads thus; 'Following sub-section (5) shall be substituted for the existing subsection( 5) of section 139 by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017. (5) If any person, having furnished a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4), discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

31(2) of the Constitution. ITA Nos.417 of 2007 & 1069 of 2007 Page 16 of 22 19. It is clear from the above that when an undertaking is sold, it is to be understood in contra-distinction, a whole of undertaking. From this itself, it would clearly follow that Section 50 dealing with the depreciable

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

31,66,581 Total Income 33,64,479 Less : Unabsorbed Depreciation of A.Y. 2002-03 2,11,69,435 Unabsorbed Depreciation to be carried forward (1,78,04,956) In this computation following details of unabsorbed depreciation were given : ITA No. 3076 & C.O. No. 318/Del/2012 5 A.Y. Set off in this year Unabsorbed Unabsorbed depreciation (A.Y. 2004-05) carried forward

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

31(2) of the Constitution. 2010:DHC:6300-DB 19. It is clear from the above that when an undertaking is sold, it is to be understood in contra-distinction, a whole of undertaking. From this itself, it would clearly follow that Section 50 dealing with the depreciable

JASRATI EDUCATION SOLUTIONS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

depreciation, carry forward and brought forward losses. b) MAT under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. 11.2 All assessments / appellate or other proceedings pending in case of the Corporate Debtor, on the date of the order of NCLT relating to the period prior to that date, shall stand terminated and all consequential liabilities, if any, stand abated and should

JASRATI EDUCATION SOLUTIONS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ADDITIONAL JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

depreciation, carry forward and brought forward losses. b) MAT under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. 11.2 All assessments / appellate or other proceedings pending in case of the Corporate Debtor, on the date of the order of NCLT relating to the period prior to that date, shall stand terminated and all consequential liabilities, if any, stand abated and should

KRISHAN DEV VERMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1, BHIWANI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

depreciation, carry forward and brought forward losses. b) MAT under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. 11.2 All assessments / appellate or other proceedings pending in case of the Corporate Debtor, on the date of the order of NCLT relating to the period prior to that date, shall stand terminated and all consequential liabilities, if any, stand abated and should