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

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and

depreciation under Section 32(2)(ii) is not available on goodwill; (b) the assessee Company was unable to demonstrate that

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. A reading of Section 32(2) thus make it clear that if the unabsorbed depreciation allowance could not be wholly

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. A reading of Section 32(2) thus make it clear that if the unabsorbed depreciation allowance could not be wholly

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FRIGOGLASS INDIA PRIVATE LTD., GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal and Assessee’s Cross objection stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation are contained in Section 32(2) which was amended by Finance Act, 1996 and as per amended Section 32

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2 vs. BRITISH MOTOR CAR CO.(1934) LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 32(2) of the Act to the extent is relevant, reads, as follows:- “32. Depreciation (1) ....... ....... ....... ...... (2) Where, in the assessment

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 and 32

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 under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. This issue has been decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sharp Business System (supra) as under: “Q. Nos. 2

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

32,600/- as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). d. Disallowed excess claim of depreciation

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

2) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in adding back disallowance of Rs.212,15,413 under section l4A read with Rule 8D of the Rules in computing book profit under section 115J8 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation claimed under section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act, on the amount of goodwill. 4.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ DRP erred in holding that goodwill does not qualify as 'business or commercial right’ as envisaged under section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. 4.3 That on the facts

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

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

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

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

M/S. HIMGIRI METALS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raohimgiri Metals (P) Ltd, Jcit, C/O.Rra Taxindia, Range-1, Vs. D-28, South Extension, Muzzafarnagar, New Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan:Aaach7613P (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation under Section 32 shall be mandatory. Therefore, the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 would

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

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

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act as it stood at the relevant time, read as follows: “32. Depreciation: (1) In respect of depreciation of – (2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. EASTMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

depreciation at 20 per cent 2008:DHC:2682-DB ITA No. 895 of 2007 Page 17 of 21 as against the general rate of 5 per cent for residential buildings and 10 per cent for non-residential buildings.” Pursuant to the above announcement, amendments have been made to Sections 2, 32

INCOME TAX vs. LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

depreciation at 20 per cent 2008:DHC:2682-DB ITA No. 895 of 2007 Page 17 of 21 as against the general rate of 5 per cent for residential buildings and 10 per cent for non-residential buildings.” Pursuant to the above announcement, amendments have been made to Sections 2, 32