GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

iii) Business records, (iv) Contracts, (v) Skilled employees, (vi) knowhow. It is also observed that the AO accepted the allocation of the slump consideration of Rs.44.7 Crores paid by the transferee, between tangible assets and intangible assets (described as goodwill) acquired as part of the running business. The AO, however, held that depreciation in terms of Section 32(1

AREVA T & D INDIA LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and

iii) Business records, (iv) Contracts, (v) Skilled employees, (vi) knowhow. It is also observed that the AO accepted the allocation of the slump consideration of Rs.44.7 Crores paid by the transferee, between tangible assets and intangible assets (described as goodwill) acquired as part of the running business. The AO, however, held that depreciation in terms of Section 32(1

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

32(1)(ii) of the Act and accordingly, he denied the 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 ,assessing the total income at Rs.3,91,17,150/- against the returned income of Rs.2,15,72,860/- (in response to notice under section

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

32 with caption “Depreciation” opens through sub-section (1) with the expression “In respect of depreciation of” and then sets out tangible and intangible assets owned and used by the assessee for the purposes of business or profession and then provides that `the following deductions shall be allowed’. Then there are clauses (i), (ii), (iia) and (iii

SHERVANI HOSPITALITIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

Section 32(1) was not on the statute. As per the said explanation, capital expenditure on leased premises has to be capitalized and depreciation is allowable treating the assessee as deemed owner. Therefore, from Assessment year 1988-89, the capital expenditure in leased premises will have to be treated as capital expenditure, which is entitled for depreciation and cannot

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

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

iii. To remove the discrimination in the manner of allowing additional depreciation on plant or machinery used for less than 180 days and plant or machinery used for 180 days or more, a new proviso has been inserted to section 32(l)(ii) of the Income-tax Act so as to provide that the balance 50% of the additional depreciation

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation. The Tribunal also upheld the contention of the appellant that the provisions of Section 44C would not be attracted and hence the disallowing provisions thereof would be inapplicable. 23. As regards the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was concerned, the Tribunal held that the appellant would be liable to pay interest under Section 234A. However, with

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBONS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

32(l)(iia) of the Act is in the nature of an incentive and cannot, therefore, be treated at par with ‘normal depreciation’. 7. The revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 5989/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBONS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

32(l)(iia) of the Act is in the nature of an incentive and cannot, therefore, be treated at par with ‘normal depreciation’. 7. The revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 5989/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing

DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON vs. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

32(l)(iia) of the Act is in the nature of an incentive and cannot, therefore, be treated at par with ‘normal depreciation’. 7. The revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 5989/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

32(l)(iia) of the Act is in the nature of an incentive and cannot, therefore, be treated at par with ‘normal depreciation’. 7. The revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 5989/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

32(l)(iia) of the Act is in the nature of an incentive and cannot, therefore, be treated at par with ‘normal depreciation’. 7. The revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 5989/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing

DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON vs. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

32(l)(iia) of the Act is in the nature of an incentive and cannot, therefore, be treated at par with ‘normal depreciation’. 7. The revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 5989/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

III). Based on the decision of the aforesaid judgments and the circular, the ITAT reasoned as under:- “Section 80 of the Act in terms does not refer to section 32(2) which deals with unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, it is not necessary for the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation that the return should have been filed within the time allowed under

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

32(1)(iia) of the Act, without appreciating that no such condition existed in the said 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. 27,68,039 on the ground that the same related to investment activity of the appellant. 4.1 That

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

32(1)(iia) of the Act, without appreciating that no such condition existed in the said 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. 27,68,039 on the ground that the same related to investment activity of the appellant. 4.1 That

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

1)(ii) with respect to the aforesaid amount as being a price paid for acquisition of above mentioned intangible assets. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation on 'goodwill' as claimed in the return. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee-company on grounds that depreciation under section 32(2)(ii) is not available on goodwill. The assessee contended

PMV MALTINGS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee for ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Act. In our opinion, the claim of assessee is to be allowed on the following lines:-i. ii. iii

PMV MALTINGS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee for ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Act. In our opinion, the claim of assessee is to be allowed on the following lines:-i. ii. iii