ADDL. CIT,SPL RNAGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

depreciation on support equipments and assets of venture amounting to Rs.95,36,850/- by not considering the specific observation in the assessment order that in the case of oil prospecting companies expenses incurred on abandoned or abortive projects are allowable as per section 42

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ONGC VIDESH LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

depreciation on support equipments and assets of venture amounting to Rs.95,36,850/- by not considering the specific observation in the assessment order that in the case of oil prospecting companies expenses incurred on abandoned or abortive projects are allowable as per section 42

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

depreciation on support equipments and assets of venture amounting to Rs.95,36,850/- by not considering the specific observation in the assessment order that in the case of oil prospecting companies expenses incurred on abandoned or abortive projects are allowable as per section 42

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

depreciation on support equipments and assets of venture amounting to Rs.95,36,850/- by not considering the specific observation in the assessment order that in the case of oil prospecting companies expenses incurred on abandoned or abortive projects are allowable as per section 42

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

depreciation on support equipments and assets of venture amounting to Rs.95,36,850/- by not considering the specific observation in the assessment order that in the case of oil prospecting companies expenses incurred on abandoned or abortive projects are allowable as per section 42

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

depreciation on support equipments and assets of venture amounting to Rs.95,36,850/- by not considering the specific observation in the assessment order that in the case of oil prospecting companies expenses incurred on abandoned or abortive projects are allowable as per section 42

AREVA T & D INDIA LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and

Depreciation (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, owned, wholly or partly, by the Assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession

ACIT,CIRCLE-19(1), NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LIMITED, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Ongc Videsh Limited Circle-19(1), Tower-B5, Nelson Mandela New Delhi Marg, Vasant Kinj, New Delhi Pan : Aaaco1230F (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation on support equipments and assets of venture amounting to Rs. 3,26,31,975 by not considering the specific observation in the assessment in order that in the case of oil prospecting companies expenses incurred on abandoned or abortive projects arc allowable as per section 42

M/S. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Bg Exploration & Production India Jcit (International Taxation), Ltd., Dehradun. Lake Boulevard Road, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai.

depreciation rate of 15% on the Panna-Mukta Well Cost as per section 32, instead of allowing 100% of the cost under section 42

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act?" 42. We find, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Ongc Videsh Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 601, 6Th Floor, Kailash Building, Range-13, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco1230F Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ongc Videsh Ltd., 601, 6Th Floor, Kailash Circle 13(1), New Delhi Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco1230F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, Shri R.P. Mall, Advocate & Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Pramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

depreciation. The Assessing Officer further held that the expenditure incurred also does not fall within the ambit of section 42

ONGC VIDESH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Ongc Videsh Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 601, 6Th Floor, Kailash Building, Range-13, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco1230F Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ongc Videsh Ltd., 601, 6Th Floor, Kailash Circle 13(1), New Delhi Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco1230F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, Shri R.P. Mall, Advocate & Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Pramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

depreciation. The Assessing Officer further held that the expenditure incurred also does not fall within the ambit of section 42

VEDANTA LTD (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LTD),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

depreciation on producing facilities @ 5.28% on straight line method, thereby making adjustment of Rs.180,40,27,029 to the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO/DRP erred in not appreciating that the transactions of reimbursement of Rs.2,00,40,842, Manpower, general and administrative

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

depreciable assets. The AO had not accepted this contention and held that Section 50 was applicable and he, therefore, computed short term capital gain at `36.89 Crores on the sale of the said division, which is as under: “COMPUTATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF SALE OF LAMP DIVSIION AS PER SECTION 50[2] Sale consideration received on transfer

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

depreciable assets. The AO had not accepted this contention and held that Section 50 was applicable and he, therefore, computed short term capital gain at `36.89 Crores on the sale of the said division, which is as under: “COMPUTATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF SALE OF LAMP DIVSIION AS PER SECTION 50[2] Sale consideration received on transfer

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN

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

depreciation of Rs.88,90,051 under section 32(l)(iia) of the Act on the new plant and machinery of Rs.4,44,50,253 purchased and put to use by the Appellant during the year. Ground No. 20: Disallowance of interest incurred on loan taken from BGAP 20.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

section 32(2). Therefore, one cannot exclude depreciation allowance while computing profits derived from a newly established undertaking. ITA No. 3076 & C.O. No. 318/Del/2012 3 Grounds of Cross-objection: 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of demerger expenses of Rs. 28,42

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - IV vs. BEVERAGES PVT. LTD

depreciation of – (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession