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

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

iv) The assessee company is a share and currency broker. Its business dealing either in share and in commodities own behalf re in "PRO" account or on behalf of clients. In respect of PRO trading, it gets the direct benefit of profit and loss whereas, in respect of trading on behalf of them, it can only earn the brokerage

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

iv) to Section 115JA. Rejecting contention and relying upon decision in case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (supra), it was observed:- “Based on ratio of Supreme Court in Tata Iron and Steel Ltd it is clear that in arriving at an amount that is to be deducted from book profits ' which is really to benefit of assessee

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

iv) to Section 115JA. Rejecting contention and relying upon decision in case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (supra), it was observed:- “Based on ratio of Supreme Court in Tata Iron and Steel Ltd it is clear that in arriving at an amount that is to be deducted from book profits ' which is really to benefit of assessee

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

iv) to Section 115JA. Rejecting contention and relying upon decision in case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (supra), it was observed:- “Based on ratio of Supreme Court in Tata Iron and Steel Ltd it is clear that in arriving at an amount that is to be deducted from book profits ' which is really to benefit of assessee

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

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

Depreciation 2393 3 749 3145 Cairn U K Holdings Limited V DCIT ( International Taxation) New Delhi A Y 2007-08 P a g e | 34 Amortization 2242 -- 1620 3862 The segment assets and liabilities as at 31 December 2006 and capital expenditure for the year then ended are follows: Cairn India Capricorn Other Group 2006 Limited Energy Group Limited Group

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

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

INCOME TAX vs. LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

iv) the financial year of the assessee immediately preceding the assessment year. 14.6 A clearer indicator of the untenability of, the Revenue‟s submission, is demonstrable from the latter part of the provision of section 50(2) which provides the manner in which capital gains are to be arrived at. In order to do so, firstly, the cost

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

The appeal is dismissed

iv) the financial year of the assessee immediately preceding the assessment year. 14.6 A clearer indicator of the untenability of, the Revenue‟s submission, is demonstrable from the latter part of the provision of section 50(2) which provides the manner in which capital gains are to be arrived at. In order to do so, firstly, the cost

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

iv)(35)(2).-PBA-3 4) Explanation 3 to section 43(1) specifically provides that the Assessing Officer shall determine the actual cost having regard to the circumstances of the case, where the Assessing Officer is of the view that the sale at the higher value was shown to enable the assessee to claim higher depreciation

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

iv)(35)(2).-PBA-3 4) Explanation 3 to section 43(1) specifically provides that the Assessing Officer shall determine the actual cost having regard to the circumstances of the case, where the Assessing Officer is of the view that the sale at the higher value was shown to enable the assessee to claim higher depreciation

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

iv)(35)(2).-PBA-3 4) Explanation 3 to section 43(1) specifically provides that the Assessing Officer shall determine the actual cost having regard to the circumstances of the case, where the Assessing Officer is of the view that the sale at the higher value was shown to enable the assessee to claim higher depreciation

M/S. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

iv)(35)(2).-PBA-3 4) Explanation 3 to section 43(1) specifically provides that the Assessing Officer shall determine the actual cost having regard to the circumstances of the case, where the Assessing Officer is of the view that the sale at the higher value was shown to enable the assessee to claim higher depreciation

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

35 of its order has given as many as 17 reasons, which will be taken note of at an appropriate stage. While remanding the case back to the AO, directions to undertake the exercise afresh on the lines suggested by the Tribunal are stated as under: “63. In view of the above, we accept the contentions raised on behalf