COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HYBRID RICE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Becoming An “Assessee” Can Still Be Treated As Actual Cost To The Assessee In Complete Disregard To The Peculiar Circumstances Of The Case?”

depreciation as deduction subject to the provision of section 34. Section 34 provides that deduction under section 32 shall be allowed

PRASIDH FINCAP LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

depreciation as deduction subject to the provision Section 34 provides that deduction under section 32 shall be allowed only if the prescribed

PRASIDH FINCAP LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

depreciation as deduction subject to the provision Section 34 provides that deduction under section 32 shall be allowed only if the prescribed

PRASIDH FINCAP LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

depreciation as deduction subject to the provision Section 34 provides that deduction under section 32 shall be allowed only if the prescribed

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

34,528/- and Rs.4,03,26,027/- respectively which was claimed as exempt income under section 10 of the Act and has added back the amount of Rs.26,96,640/- on account of expenses proportionate to earn this income under section 14A and 115 JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Consequently, AO made disallowance

PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

34,104/- being the depreciation allowed by the ITANo.1378 & 2288/Del/2017 Assessing Officer on utilization of FCCB proceeds towards depreciable assets. 4) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.8,53,916/- under section

M/S. PARAMOUNT COMMUNICTIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

34,104/- being the depreciation allowed by the ITANo.1378 & 2288/Del/2017 Assessing Officer on utilization of FCCB proceeds towards depreciable assets. 4) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.8,53,916/- under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

34,104/- being the depreciation allowed by the ITANo.1378 & 2288/Del/2017 Assessing Officer on utilization of FCCB proceeds towards depreciable assets. 4) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.8,53,916/- under 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

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed on 28/12/2007 assessing the total income at Rs.3,34,62,310/-. In the assessment completed, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for allowance of non-compete fee of Rs.5,94,84,980/-as revenue expenditure. This disallowance was contested by the assessee

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order dated 31

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadi N Mishra

depreciation in respect of assets so identified. Before passing the fresh order u/s 263 of I.T.Act, ld. Pr.CIT is free to ascertain facts from Ld. CIT(Appeals) and from the Assessing Officer. Also, Ld. Pr. CIT is directed to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee, before he passes fresh order u/s263 of I.T.Act, to provide any further materials. Ld. Pr.CIT

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

depreciation on goodwill amounting to INR 1,55,34,890 claimed under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 3. That

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, therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer in computing the deduction under section 1 OB is correct. The reference of the CIT(A) to sub-section (6) of section 10B is misplaced as the said sub-section provides for the procedure to be adopted in the year immediately following the year in which the tax holiday comes

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation under section 32 of the Act In the case of Airports Authority of India v. CIT: 134 ITD 34

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation under section 32 of the Act In the case of Airports Authority of India v. CIT: 134 ITD 34

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation under section 32 of the Act In the case of Airports Authority of India v. CIT: 134 ITD 34