M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 276C of the Income-tax Act." 4.10 The Hon'bie Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT v/s Mak Data Ltd., ITA No.415/2012, order dated: 22.01.2013 held that even the surrender of income without explanation attracts penalty. In the case of Mak Data Ltd. (supra), a survey u/s 133A was conducted on the assessee’s premises

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 276C of the Income-tax Act." 4.10 The Hon'bie Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT v/s Mak Data Ltd., ITA No.415/2012, order dated: 22.01.2013 held that even the surrender of income without explanation attracts penalty. In the case of Mak Data Ltd. (supra), a survey u/s 133A was conducted on the assessee’s premises

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 (A) to 35

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

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanti.T.A. No.2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Splendor Landbase Of Income, Central Vs. Limited, Circle-3, F-38/2, Splendor House, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 215/Del/2016 In I.T.A. No. 2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 M/S Splendor Landbase Assistant Commissioner Limited, Vs. Of Income, Central Circle- F-38/2, Splendor House, 3, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

35,877/- in 153A return for AY 2010-11, it is submitted that as unabsorbed depreciation is not a loss as it is governed by provisions of section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED

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

Section 32(2) of the Act for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation to any subsequent year. The apex court in CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. [1966]59ITR555(SC) has held that unabsorbed depreciation of past years had to be added to depreciation of the current year and the aggregate unabsorbed and current year's depreciation

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

35 times in past. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, an attempt was made to dispose of all these appeals. At request of parties, we have heard them together and disposed of by this common order. AY 2000-01 2. First, we take up ITA number 4410/del/2003 for assessment year 2000 – 01 filed by learned Assistant Commissioner of Income

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, MORADABAD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

35 times in past. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, an attempt was made to dispose of all these appeals. At request of parties, we have heard them together and disposed of by this common order. AY 2000-01 2. First, we take up ITA number 4410/del/2003 for assessment year 2000 – 01 filed by learned Assistant Commissioner of Income

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S JUBLIANT ORGANOSYS LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

35 times in past. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, an attempt was made to dispose of all these appeals. At request of parties, we have heard them together and disposed of by this common order. AY 2000-01 2. First, we take up ITA number 4410/del/2003 for assessment year 2000 – 01 filed by learned Assistant Commissioner of Income

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

depreciation under section 32 or deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

depreciation under section 32 or deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant

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

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

depreciation under section 32 or deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of\nthe Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. TRIMASTER PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner Of Trimaster Private Limited, Income Tax, Room No.192A, 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, First Floor, C.R. Building, Ito, Vs New Delhi-110020 Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacn0138P Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.119/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.955/Del/2025 ) [Assessment Year: 2021-22 Trimaster Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, Tax, Room No.192A, First Floor, New Delhi-110020 Vs C.R. Building, Ito, Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacn0138P Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Nitini Kumar Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2026

35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or section 35CCD or under any provisions of Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA or section 80M; (ii) without set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. M/S INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act was denied as the entire expenditure on the capital asset had been allowed under Section 35

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

depreciable assets. The CIT(A) also rejected the contention of the ITA Nos.417 of 2007 & 1069 of 2007 Page 4 of 22 assessee that no break-up of sale consideration between tangible and intangible asset was possible and even if the sale was to be treated as slump sale, the gain would be taxable as laid out by the Supreme

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

depreciable asset was to be treated as short term capital gain and required the assessee to quantify the consideration received by it for sale of tangible and intangible assets but the assessee did not furnish the same. Accordingly, he took the written down value (WDV) of the assets of Lamp Division at `5,15,75,131 as on 01.04.1998 declared

DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HANON CLIMATE SYSTEMS INDIA P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VISTEON CLIMATE SYSTEMS LIMITED INDIA LTD), NEW DELHI

Accordingly decided against the Revenue while ground no. 2 is decided in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of revenue is allowed partly

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5813/Del/2018, A.Y. 2012-13

depreciation has been claimed on the said capital expenditure u/s 32(1) of the Income Tax Act. A show cause was given that in case of non submission of said details why the deduction claimed may not be allowed under section 35