M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

depreciation on computers; and, disallowance of amortization of land in respect of wind power projects. In appeal before the learned CIT(A), assessee was allowed partial relief and, not being satisfied with the order of the CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal in above stated Grounds of appeal. 6. In this background, the rival representatives have been heard. Insofar

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

C R Building New Delhi I P Estate PAN: AAACT0668G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee Shri saurav Sood Adv Shri Shahsnk Sharma Adv Ms Subhashree Rao Adv For Revenue Shri Samar Bhadra CIT DR Date of Hearing 21-08-2020 Date of pronouncement 31/08/2020 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi AM Page 1 of 29 & 2205/Del/2005

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

C R Building New Delhi I P Estate PAN: AAACT0668G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee Shri saurav Sood Adv Shri Shahsnk Sharma Adv Ms Subhashree Rao Adv For Revenue Shri Samar Bhadra CIT DR Date of Hearing 21-08-2020 Date of pronouncement 31/08/2020 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi AM Page 1 of 29 & 2205/Del/2005

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year as well

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year as well

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 35D of the act. Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of act amounting to INR 516339/- for share issue expenses incurred by amalgamating companies. The claim of assessee is that it has been allowed to assessee in previous assessment years and this being last year of said claim, it should be allowed in this year as well

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

2.—For the purposes of this sub-section "written down value of the block of assets" shall have the same meaning as in clause (c) of sub-section (6) of section 43. From the above it is clear that the aggregate deduction, in respect of depreciation allowable to the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company in the case of amalgamatioi

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

35D was claimed relating to public issue of shares. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty, holding that assessee had not concealed income. ITAT upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal, the Hon'bie HC held the case would attract penalty u/s 271(l)(c). The facts and circumstances of the present case are strikingly similar because after

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

depreciation on the said capitalized value, the jurisdictional ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others Delhi High Court observed that the assessee was obliged to capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of AS-2 and AS-10 and that there was no merit in the submissions of the revenue that the accounting treatment in accordance with the Accounting

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

depreciation on the said capitalized value, the jurisdictional ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others Delhi High Court observed that the assessee was obliged to capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of AS-2 and AS-10 and that there was no merit in the submissions of the revenue that the accounting treatment in accordance with the Accounting

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

depreciation on the said capitalized value, the jurisdictional ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others Delhi High Court observed that the assessee was obliged to capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of AS-2 and AS-10 and that there was no merit in the submissions of the revenue that the accounting treatment in accordance with the Accounting

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

depreciation on the said capitalized value, the jurisdictional ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others Delhi High Court observed that the assessee was obliged to capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of AS-2 and AS-10 and that there was no merit in the submissions of the revenue that the accounting treatment in accordance with the Accounting

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

depreciation on the said capitalized value, the jurisdictional ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others Delhi High Court observed that the assessee was obliged to capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of AS-2 and AS-10 and that there was no merit in the submissions of the revenue that the accounting treatment in accordance with the Accounting

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

c) That the AO completed the assessment proceedings without considering the genuineness and creditworthiness of investors. 7. Later Pr.CIT held that the AO did not verify the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders during the assessment stage and held the assessment order dated 5.4.2016 to be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OXIGEN SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08

depreciation @ 15% is to be allowable under the head ‘plant and machinery. 8. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,86,094/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

2 of 1886), was in force:” ……………………………………………………………………………………………………” 7.5 Further, the actual cost has been defined in section 43(1) of the Act as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

2 of 1886), was in force:” ……………………………………………………………………………………………………” 7.5 Further, the actual cost has been defined in section 43(1) of the Act as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. (HUDCO), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

2 of 1886), was in force:” ……………………………………………………………………………………………………” 7.5 Further, the actual cost has been defined in section 43(1) of the Act as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof