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

46,187 Income from Other Sources 1,68,98,037 50,90,742 Less : Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation 14,22,71,036 Gross Total Loss (13,71,80,294) From the above table, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10B without considering the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and that the assessee has not completely followed

C.I.T vs. DENSO INDIA LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-Tax Act was made in this behalf. 4. Be that as it may, the dispute relates to the payment of ` 63,46

JX NIPPON TWO LUBRICANTS INDIA PVT. LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4985/Del/2019 :Asstt. Year : 2015-16 & Sa No. 985/Del/2019 :Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Jx Nippon Two Lubricants India Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd., Unit No. 1003, 10Th Floor, Vatika Circle-2(1), City Point, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcj3601L Assessee By :Sh. Nageswarrao, Adv. Revenue By:Sh. Vedprakash Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing:13.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2021

depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs. 13,46,78,733/- claimed under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) without

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

46, it has been noted as follows : "Depreciation is the exhaustion of the effective life of a fixed asset owing to ' use ' or obsolescence. It may be computed as that part of the cost of the asset which will not be recovered when the asset is finally put out of use. The object of providing for depreciation is to spread

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 under the above provision can be in the production of intermediary viz., pulp. We therefore agree with the finding of the Tribunal and dismiss the department appeal.” • CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd: 321 ITR 477 (Mad) • CIT v. Texmo Precision castings: 321 ITR 481 (Mad) 12.0.1 The ratio emanating from the aforesaid decisions squarely supports the aforesaid interpretation

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 under the above provision can be in the production of intermediary viz., pulp. We therefore agree with the finding of the Tribunal and dismiss the department appeal.” • CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd: 321 ITR 477 (Mad) • CIT v. Texmo Precision castings: 321 ITR 481 (Mad) 12.0.1 The ratio emanating from the aforesaid decisions squarely supports the aforesaid interpretation

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

46,75,508/- on account of disallowance of additional depreciation is deleted. The ground of appeal is allowed.” 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No. 1 and 1a) relate thereto. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing carry forward of additional depreciation. There cannot be any carried forward additional

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

depreciation restricted @25% instead of @60% claimed, which is not applicable as per the provision of Income Tax Rule, 1962. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or vary from the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 4. At the first instance, we will deal with the appeal of the assessee

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

depreciation restricted @25% instead of @60% claimed, which is not applicable as per the provision of Income Tax Rule, 1962. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or vary from the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 4. At the first instance, we will deal with the appeal of the assessee

M/S LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, 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 254/148/143(3) of the Act giving effect to the said order of the Tribunal. In the said order, the assessing officer, after considering the entire material available on record, reiterated the findings given in original assessment and allowed depreciation on golf course @ 10% by treating the same as „building‟. On further appeal against the said order

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON 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 254/148/143(3) of the Act giving effect to the said order of the Tribunal. In the said order, the assessing officer, after considering the entire material available on record, reiterated the findings given in original assessment and allowed depreciation on golf course @ 10% by treating the same as „building‟. On further appeal against the said order

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON 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 254/148/143(3) of the Act giving effect to the said order of the Tribunal. In the said order, the assessing officer, after considering the entire material available on record, reiterated the findings given in original assessment and allowed depreciation on golf course @ 10% by treating the same as „building‟. On further appeal against the said order

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., 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 254/148/143(3) of the Act giving effect to the said order of the Tribunal. In the said order, the assessing officer, after considering the entire material available on record, reiterated the findings given in original assessment and allowed depreciation on golf course @ 10% by treating the same as „building‟. On further appeal against the said order

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 254/148/143(3) of the Act giving effect to the said order of the Tribunal. In the said order, the assessing officer, after considering the entire material available on record, reiterated the findings given in original assessment and allowed depreciation on golf course @ 10% by treating the same as „building‟. On further appeal against the said order

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 254/148/143(3) of the Act giving effect to the said order of the Tribunal. In the said order, the assessing officer, after considering the entire material available on record, reiterated the findings given in original assessment and allowed depreciation on golf course @ 10% by treating the same as „building‟. On further appeal against the said order

GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 32(1) of the Act that depreciation is permissible in respect of intangible assets listed herein, acquired on or after 01.04.1998. This clause contains certain specified and unspecified species of intangible assets. Whereas the specified intangible assets 22 ITA.No.4771/Del./2018 Geodis Overseas Private Limited, Gurgaon. enshrined in the provision include know-how, patent and copyrights ITA No.1976/Del/2006

KURUKSHETRA EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD,REWARI vs. DCIT CIRCLE, REWARI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at an assessed loss of Rs. 46,00,81,683/-, whereby the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of Rs. 22,52,009/- on account of interest income. The claim of depreciation

GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 32(1) of the Act that depreciation is permissible in respect of intangible assets listed herein, acquired on or after 01.04.1998. This clause contains certain specified and unspecified species of intangible assets. Whereas the specified intangible assets enshrined in the provision include know-how, patent and copyrights ITA No. 1976/Del/2006 etc., the unspecified intangible assets have been described with