COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

Section 41(2) refers to the concept of a "balancing charge" which arises only when depreciable asset is sold. Section

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

Section 41(2) refers to the concept of a "balancing charge" which arises only when depreciable asset is sold. Section

M.J. GLOBAL PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

Section 41 (1) of the IT Act and held that the Respondent had received amortization benefit. Amortization is an accounting term that refers to the process of allocating the cost of an asset over a period of time, hence, it is nothing else than depreciation

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. M.J. ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

Section 41 (1) of the IT Act and held that the Respondent had received amortization benefit. Amortization is an accounting term that refers to the process of allocating the cost of an asset over a period of time, hence, it is nothing else than depreciation

M.J. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

Section 41 (1) of the IT Act and held that the Respondent had received amortization benefit. Amortization is an accounting term that refers to the process of allocating the cost of an asset over a period of time, hence, it is nothing else than depreciation

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. M.J. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

Section 41 (1) of the IT Act and held that the Respondent had received amortization benefit. Amortization is an accounting term that refers to the process of allocating the cost of an asset over a period of time, hence, it is nothing else than depreciation

LOGITRONICS PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR

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

Section 41(1) was not applicable because such deduction was not in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability. In order to get over this alternative argument, it was argued by the Department that the loan was used to buy toolings on which Assessee got depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-2 vs. CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

depreciation is neither a loss, nor an expenditure, nor a trading liability, referred to in Section 41(1). The depreciation

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WASAN ESPORTS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41 (1) of the IT Act and held that the Respondent had received amortization benefit. Amortization is an accounting term that refers to the process of allocating the cost of an asset over a period of time, hence, it is nothing else than depreciation

WASAN EXPORTS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41 (1) of the IT Act and held that the Respondent had received amortization benefit. Amortization is an accounting term that refers to the process of allocating the cost of an asset over a period of time, hence, it is nothing else than depreciation

DABUR INDIA LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: We Consider The Submissions Made In Support Of The Appeal The Following Facts Require To Be Noted:- 2.1 The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Herbal Products & Cosmetics. On 30.11.2000 Assessee Filed Its Return For Assessment Year 2000-01 Wherein, It Declared An Income Of Rs 12,15,25,093/-. On 10.5.2001 The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Act As The Returned Income. However, Notices Were Issued Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. 2.2 In Response To The Aforesaid Notices, Hearing Was Attended By An Authorized Representative Before The Assessing Officer. 2008:Dhc:2521

Section 80 IB and 80 HHC after withdrawing the depreciation quantified at Rs 11,41,47,451/-. The CIT (A) based

ITO WARD 17(1), NEW DELHI vs. MEYER APPAREL PVT. LTD., HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarito, Vs. Meyer Apparel Pvt. Ltd, Ward-17(1), 42, Milestone Delhi Jaipur Highway, New Delhi Kherki Daula, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaach3928L

section 41(1) and held that the assessee had received amortization benefit. Amortization is an accounting term that refers to the process of allocating the cost of an asset over a period of time, hence, it is nothing else than depreciation

The Commissioner of Income Tax ¿¿¿ II vs. Jindal Equipments Leasing & Consultancy Services Ltd.

41(1) does not apply to which legal position is constituted by the learned counsel for the Revenue before us, the Revenue still wants that the addition be sustained under provisions of Clause (iv) of Section 28 of the Act. The Revenue is not disputing the facts on the basis of which decision of the Tribunal is based. Submission

ENCORP E-SERVICE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

41(1) of the Act are not applicable to waiver of such loans nor any allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of such loan. 2. In upholding the disallowance of Rs.89,311/- on account of depreciation on assets in the premises sealed by the Government due to ban on lottery

ENCORP E-SERVICE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

41(1) of the Act are not applicable to waiver of such loans nor any allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of such loan. 2. In upholding the disallowance of Rs.89,311/- on account of depreciation on assets in the premises sealed by the Government due to ban on lottery

GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, the international transactions entered into by the assessee with the associated enterprises were referred to the Transfer Pricing Office for determining the Arms Length Price. The TPO passed order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, on 21/1/2016 thereby making adjustment of Rs. 7,73,93,666/-. The draft assessment was passed on 15/3/2016

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

depreciation claimed of Rs. 56,45,639/- @ 25% on Government Authorizations Of Rs. 4,41,66,706/- was shown. 4.2 According to the Assessing Officer above disclosure was not sufficient to meet the requirement of law (i.e. proviso to section

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 41 (1) (a) of the I. T. Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,59,50,000/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed income on sale of land. 3.1. The Ld. CIT (A) ignored the fact