DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

section 271(l)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary or rescind any of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing in the interest of natural

DCIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 32(1)(i) of the Act shall be calculated at the rate/ percentage specified in Appendix (1A) of the Rules on the actual cost of the assets. Second proviso to sub-rule (1A) provides that the undertaking may instead of claiming depreciation under sub-rule (1A), claim depreciation under sub-rule (1) read with Appendix 1 to the Rules

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,HARYANA vs. DCIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 32(1)(i) of the Act shall be calculated at the rate/ percentage specified in Appendix (1A) of the Rules on the actual cost of the assets. Second proviso to sub-rule (1A) provides that the undertaking may instead of claiming depreciation under sub-rule (1A), claim depreciation under sub-rule (1) read with Appendix 1 to the Rules

ACIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 32(1)(i) of the Act shall be calculated at the rate/ percentage specified in Appendix (1A) of the Rules on the actual cost of the assets. Second proviso to sub-rule (1A) provides that the undertaking may instead of claiming depreciation under sub-rule (1A), claim depreciation under sub-rule (1) read with Appendix 1 to the Rules

DCIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 32(1)(i) of the Act shall be calculated at the rate/ percentage specified in Appendix (1A) of the Rules on the actual cost of the assets. Second proviso to sub-rule (1A) provides that the undertaking may instead of claiming depreciation under sub-rule (1A), claim depreciation under sub-rule (1) read with Appendix 1 to the Rules

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED vs. ADDL. CIT,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 32(1)(i) of the Act shall be calculated at the rate/ percentage specified in Appendix (1A) of the Rules on the actual cost of the assets. Second proviso to sub-rule (1A) provides that the undertaking may instead of claiming depreciation under sub-rule (1A), claim depreciation under sub-rule (1) read with Appendix 1 to the Rules

ACIT, HISAR vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 32(1)(i) of the Act shall be calculated at the rate/ percentage specified in Appendix (1A) of the Rules on the actual cost of the assets. Second proviso to sub-rule (1A) provides that the undertaking may instead of claiming depreciation under sub-rule (1A), claim depreciation under sub-rule (1) read with Appendix 1 to the Rules

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 32(1)(i) of the Act shall be calculated at the rate/ percentage specified in Appendix (1A) of the Rules on the actual cost of the assets. Second proviso to sub-rule (1A) provides that the undertaking may instead of claiming depreciation under sub-rule (1A), claim depreciation under sub-rule (1) read with Appendix 1 to the Rules

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

section 32(1)(i) of the Act shall be calculated at the rate/ percentage specified in Appendix (1A) of the Rules on the actual cost of the assets. Second proviso to sub-rule (1A) provides that the undertaking may instead of claiming depreciation under sub-rule (1A), claim depreciation under sub-rule (1) read with Appendix 1 to the Rules

M/S. BIKANERVALA FOODS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bikanervala Foods Pvt. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, A-28, Lawrence Road Circle-3(1), Room No. 390, Industrial Area, New Delhi C.R. Building, New Delhi Pan :Aaacb0611P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 32 (1)(iia), the additional depreciation will not be available for the followings: (i) any machinery or plant which was used by any other person, before its installation by the assessee (ii) any machinery or plant, which was installed in any office premises or residential accommodation including a guesthouse (iii) any office appliance or road transport vehicles

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present Assessment Year also the facts are similar and are squarely covered with the decision of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Hence Ground Nos. 15 to 14.3 are allowed. 24. As regards Ground No. 16 to 16.2 is relating to Disallowance

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

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

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

depreciation under section 32 of the Act, consistent with his finding\nthat the aforesaid expenditure is capital in nature.\n9. That the assessing officer /DRP erred on facts and in law in treating\ngains from sale and purchase of mutual funds as \"business income” as against\nthe same being declared under the head capital gains\" by the appellant.\n9.1 That

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

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

M/S HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Honda Motors Ltd, Dcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg0812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 43(3) of the Act and, hence, depreciable. Thus, Scientific Engg. House (P.) Ltd. (supra) dealt with the issue, whether depreciation should be allowed on intangible property like know-how, etc. The Supreme Court in Scientific Engg. (supra) had not answered the question whether the expenditure was capital or revenue in nature. A detailed discussion on the said aspect

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASHOK LOGANI

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

355-2011 & conn, matters Page 19 of 42 • .. . . .• "^7 and so they did not affect the income ot the years in question, (x) Ihe accounts involved in inter sc transfer, of funds and Personal. L.edger Accounts were personal accounts and had no bearing on the income and expenditure accounts of the petitioner. The personal accounts were subject to rc-conciliation

SH. VIJAY LATHA JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

355/- made by the AO under section 14A of the Act without appreciating facts of the case and the legal position in this regard. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowances made by the AO of Rs.5,970/- out of telephone expenses and of Rs.2,67,722/- out of vehicle expenses, including depreciation

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

355/- made by the Assessing Officer but also enhanced the income of the assessee by Rs.29,56,344/- without issuing the notice of enhancement u/s 251 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in asseesse’s own case for Assessment Year

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

section 147 in the case Experion Developers Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT 422 ITR 355(Del), referred to various decisions on the subject and held as under: “In Commissioner of Income Tax v Usha International, [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Delhi), the principle of "change of opinion" was discussed extensively: 16. Here we must draw a distinction between erroneous application/interpretation/understanding