PITNEY BOWES INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

section 32 is related to a class of rights which are intellectual property rights whereas the alleged payment is for non- compete fee. Accordingly, he denied depreciation on the “non-compete fee”, which is sustained as capital expenditure by the Tribunal and upheld by the Hon’ble High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6.2 On further appeal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

394), Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Section 14A), Cotton Textiles Companies Management of Undertaking, Liquidation and Reconstruction) Act, 1967 (sections 4(1), 5(1)(2). By the word 'undertaking is meant the entire organisation. These provisions indicate that the company whether it has a plant or whether it has an organisation is considered as one whole unit and the entire business

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

394), Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Section 14A), Cotton Textiles Companies Management of Undertaking, Liquidation and Reconstruction) Act, 1967 (sections 4(1), 5(1)(2). By the word 'undertaking is meant the entire organisation. These provisions indicate that the company whether it has a plant or whether it has an organisation is considered as one whole unit and the entire business

S.C., JOHNSON PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDI. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

depreciation on goodwill under normal provisions of the Act, while computing profits\nunder section 115JB of the Act. The summary of the findings of the Ld. AO while making the addition to the book profits of the assessee and brief comments of the Assessee on factual and legal mistakes committed by the Ld. AO while making such disallowance

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI INFRATEL LTD AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF ERSTWHILE INDUS TOWER LTD) ,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

depreciation only on written down value of assets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon‟ble High Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement by the company Court pursuant to Section 391 to 394

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

depreciation only on written down value of assets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon‟ble High Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement by the company Court pursuant to Section 391 to 394

ACIT , CIRCLE 10, NEW DELHI vs. INDUS TOWER LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

depreciation only on written down value of assets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon‟ble High Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement by the company Court pursuant to Section 391 to 394

M/S. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

depreciation. 4. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of portfolio management expenditure of Rs. 27,68,039 on the ground that the same related to investment activity of the appellant. 4.1 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing the alternate claim of the appellant for deduction

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

depreciation. 4. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of portfolio management expenditure of Rs. 27,68,039 on the ground that the same related to investment activity of the appellant. 4.1 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing the alternate claim of the appellant for deduction

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C) - II vs. MIRA EXIM LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 394 ofthe Companies Act, 1956 byorder dated 5"' October, 2004, proprietary concerns of the directors, M/s Vama Industries, Vilaramaditya Exports and Meera Overseas had merged with therespondent-assessee. The appointed date was l" April, 2004. 5. As per the said scheme, sanctioned by the High Court, upon merger, the assets and affects owned by the tlu-ee concerns became

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. MIRA EXIM

Section 394 ofthe Companies Act, 1956 byorder dated 5"' October, 2004, proprietary concerns of the directors, M/s Vama Industries, Vilaramaditya Exports and Meera Overseas had merged with therespondent-assessee. The appointed date was l" April, 2004. 5. As per the said scheme, sanctioned by the High Court, upon merger, the assets and affects owned by the tlu-ee concerns became

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C) - II vs. MIRA EXIM LTD.

Section 394 ofthe Companies Act, 1956 byorder dated 5"' October, 2004, proprietary concerns of the directors, M/s Vama Industries, Vilaramaditya Exports and Meera Overseas had merged with therespondent-assessee. The appointed date was l" April, 2004. 5. As per the said scheme, sanctioned by the High Court, upon merger, the assets and affects owned by the tlu-ee concerns became

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C) - II vs. MIRA EXIM LTD.

Section 394 ofthe Companies Act, 1956 byorder dated 5"' October, 2004, proprietary concerns of the directors, M/s Vama Industries, Vilaramaditya Exports and Meera Overseas had merged with therespondent-assessee. The appointed date was l" April, 2004. 5. As per the said scheme, sanctioned by the High Court, upon merger, the assets and affects owned by the tlu-ee concerns became

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The said scheme of Merger was also in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(1 B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) and the shareholders of FSSL and FSL were issued shares in the assessee (earlier known as KIL), pursuant to the said merger. 27 48. The scheme of arrangement approved

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The said scheme of Merger was also in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(1 B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) and the shareholders of FSSL and FSL were issued shares in the assessee (earlier known as KIL), pursuant to the said merger. 27 48. The scheme of arrangement approved

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation only on written down value of\nassets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon'ble\nHigh Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement by the\ncompany Court pursuant to Section 391 to 394

DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HALDIRAM SNACKS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

section 32(1) provides that where in a previous year an asset is acquired and put to use for the purposes of allowed at 50% of the depreciation allowable according to the percentage prescribed in respect of the block of assets comprising such asset. As regards the balance amount, the same is allowable in next succeeding year. This

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI, CR BUILDING vs. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, GURGRAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation only on written down value of\nassets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon'ble\nHigh Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement by the\ncompany Court pursuant to Section 391 to 394

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

394 of the Companies Act, 1956 with effect from February 29, 2012. 5 ITA no. 3143/Del/2019; 2050/Del/2021/Del/2021 & ITA no. 5127/Del/2019 4.2 After giving effect to the merger of the A & S division of Gingersoft, the Assessee filed its revised return under section 139(5) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration on 08th November 2013 whereby declared