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)

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act was denied as the entire expenditure on the capital asset had been allowed under Section 35(2

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

depreciation is justified and the same is\nconfirmed. Ground nos. 8 to 11 of the appeal are dismissed.\n12.\nGround nos. 12 to 20 of the appeal are against the addition of Rs.418,66,34,625 under\nSection 56 (2)(viib) of the Act.\n12.1\nThe AO noted that during the year the assessee had issued 13492216 no. of equity

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

section 142(2A) while confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. 8.2 The ld. AR on queries raised by the Bench responded that assessee trust is not running shops or distribution of products and for those shoppings and distribution and selling of products, as on commercial basis different entity is there

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TX-IV vs. INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD.

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

depreciated value of the building on the property which had been demolished to construct the hotel under the Collaboration Agreement dated December 18, 1976. 5. Clause (ii) of this Supplemental Agreement provided that the IHCL would pay the NDMC a sum of `12 lakhs per annum in lieu of house tax payable in respect of the hotel building. The Supplemental

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 32A, 34, 35

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 32A, 34, 35

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 133 (6) of the act and asked details from Cairn India Limited , purchaser of the shares of Cairn India Holdings Limited. 08. The facts of the impugned transaction, undisputedly are noted by the Ld. assessing officer in para No. 7 of his order as under:- ―7. Analysis of the transaction of sale of shares of CIHL by Assessee (CUHL

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

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

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

35-40), and the provisions of Section 150 of the Act. The assessee, while supporting the ultimate relief granted, is aggrieved by the directions given by the 14 CIT(A) in his order suggesting the AO initiate proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act. The assessee therefore before us by preferring the present Cross-Objection to challenge the dis that

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

35-40), and the provisions of Section 150 of the Act. The assessee, while supporting the ultimate relief granted, is aggrieved by the directions given by the 14 CIT(A) in his order suggesting the AO initiate proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act. The assessee therefore before us by preferring the present Cross-Objection to challenge the dis that

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 9 vs. M/S TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

depreciation, as adopted for the purpose of preparing the accounts, which would ultimately be laid before the Annual General Meeting. It was observed that a banking company, may either in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 115JB of the Act, prepare additional accounts as per Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956, or fulfil the requirements of the proviso

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

depreciable land, buildings, plant and machinery (etc.). There may be different period of holding in respect of such assets and different computation will be required for computing capital gains. It is, therefore, necessary to apportion the sale consideration in respect of various assets which together form the leasehold business assets. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in order

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

depreciable land, buildings, plant and machinery (etc.). There may be different period of holding in respect of such assets and different computation will be required for computing capital gains. It is, therefore, necessary to apportion the sale consideration in respect of various assets which together form the leasehold business assets. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in order