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

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

section 45 read withsection48oftheAct. 33. Coming to the actual consideration received as per the share purchase agreement dated 12.03.2014, Mr. Vohra submitted that although in terms of original framework agreement’s was entitled to receive aggregate consideration of Rs.855 crores (Rs.1088 crores - Rs.533 crores) from transfer of their remaining shareholding in Scorpio to CGP/GSPL, however, the parties mutually agreed

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 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

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

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

CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

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

48. (3) Every assessee, in the case of slump sale, shall furnish in the prescribed form along with the return of income, a report of an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, indicating the computation of the net worth of the undertaking or division, as the case may be, and certifying that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. K.E.I. INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.3

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.

depreciation charged thereon. Thus, the 48 ITA.No.1433/D/2014, CO.No.200/D/2017, CO.No.34/D/2019 in ITA.No.3564/D/2015 & ITA.No.528/D/2016 M/s. K.E.I. Industries Ltd., New Delhi. assessee purchased the machinery in India from the foreign funds through FCCBs which fact is not disputed by the authorities below. It is, therefore, clear that though Section

M/S. KEI INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.3

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.

depreciation charged thereon. Thus, the 48 ITA.No.1433/D/2014, CO.No.200/D/2017, CO.No.34/D/2019 in ITA.No.3564/D/2015 & ITA.No.528/D/2016 M/s. K.E.I. Industries Ltd., New Delhi. assessee purchased the machinery in India from the foreign funds through FCCBs which fact is not disputed by the authorities below. It is, therefore, clear that though Section

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

depreciable assets as under section 50 of the I.T. Act which mandates appropriate modifications with respect to the provisions of section 48

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

depreciable assets as under section 50 of the I.T. Act which mandates appropriate modifications with respect to the provisions of section 48

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

depreciable assets as under section 50 of the I.T. Act which mandates appropriate modifications with respect to the provisions of section 48

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

48,460.00. same.” 11. Further assessee submitted written submissions through email dated 29.07.2021 on the ITBA Portal as under :- "In continuation of our earlier submissions and as regards the disallowance pertaining to exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Act Amounting to Rs 2,09,07,085.00 it is also most humbly submitted that: a) That the Provisions of Section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

48,460.00. same.” 11. Further assessee submitted written submissions through email dated 29.07.2021 on the ITBA Portal as under :- "In continuation of our earlier submissions and as regards the disallowance pertaining to exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Act Amounting to Rs 2,09,07,085.00 it is also most humbly submitted that: a) That the Provisions of Section

SH. JATINDER SINGH TANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which are Bank charges, Brokerage paid, Depreciation, Interest on loan, Interest on TDS, Professional

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 has been allowed under this Act or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), the provisions of sections 48

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

depreciation has been allowed under this Act or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), the provisions of sections 48

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

The appeals are disposed of

depreciation has been allowed under this Act or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), the provisions of sections 48