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

depreciation on building. The ld. Assessing Officer is in appeal before us on deletion of the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of Rs.2,12,74,766/- and against the deletion of addition of Rs.94,32,600/- on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 05 We first come to the ground

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

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

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 DELHI IV vs. EASTMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

depreciation at 20 per cent 2008:DHC:2682-DB ITA No. 895 of 2007 Page 17 of 21 as against the general rate of 5 per cent for residential buildings and 10 per cent for non-residential buildings.” Pursuant to the above announcement, amendments have been made to Sections 2, 32 32A, 34, 35, 38, 41

INCOME TAX vs. LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

depreciation at 20 per cent 2008:DHC:2682-DB ITA No. 895 of 2007 Page 17 of 21 as against the general rate of 5 per cent for residential buildings and 10 per cent for non-residential buildings.” Pursuant to the above announcement, amendments have been made to Sections 2, 32 32A, 34, 35, 38, 41

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

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI vs. ST MICROELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2005-06 Addl. Cit, Vs St Micro Electronics Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-8, 202-206,Tolstoy House, 15, New Delhi. Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaacs3406M Appellant Respondent

41(2) stood deleted. However, even after 1.4.1988, the proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) continued till 1.4.1996 when by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1995 the bottles and crates even below Rs. 5,000/- came within the "block of assets" as defined under Section 2(11) of the 1961 Act. As stated, this judgment is confined to depreciable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previously allowable under section 32(1)(iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previously allowable under section 32(1)(iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previously allowable under section 32(1)(iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previously allowable under section 32(1)(iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2

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

2). Another requirement is that before notice is issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years, the Commissioner should be satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. The duty which is cast upon the assessee is to make

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

2). Another requirement is that before notice is issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years, the Commissioner should be satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. The duty which is cast upon the assessee is to make

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

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

41(2) stood deleted. However, even after 1.4.1988, the proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) continued till 1.4.1996 when by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1995 the bottles and crates even below Rs. 5,000/- came within the “block of assets” as defined under Section 2(11) of the 1961 Act. As stated, this judgment is confined to depreciable

CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

depreciation would be available to an assessee only as long as the written down value of the block of assets remained positive. 15. By virtue of the Taxation Laws (Amendment & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1986, the definition of the expression “written down value” as provided under Section 43(6) of the Act was also amended to provide for computation

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

41. The case of the Assessee is that by virtue of Explanation (1) to Section 2 (47), Section 269UA (d) (i) is attracted. Section 269UA(f)(i) describes 'transfer' for the purposes of Section 269 UA (d) (i) to mean the transfer of property, including by way of lease, “for a term not less than twelve years.” Therefore

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

41. The case of the Assessee is that by virtue of Explanation (1) to Section 2 (47), Section 269UA (d) (i) is attracted. Section 269UA(f)(i) describes 'transfer' for the purposes of Section 269 UA (d) (i) to mean the transfer of property, including by way of lease, “for a term not less than twelve years.” Therefore