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 block of assets at such percentage as is prescribed provided the asset is owned by the assessee and was used for the purpose of business. Section 50 of the Act was referred to and it was held that the main provision and sub- section (2

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

depreciation in respect of block of assets at such percentage as is prescribed provided the asset is owned by the assessee and was used for the purpose of business. Section 50 of the Act was referred to and it was held that the main provision and sub- section (2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

depreciation in respect of block of assets at such percentage as is prescribed provided the asset is owned by the assessee and was used for the purpose of business. Section 50 of the Act was referred to and it was held that the main provision and sub- section (2

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

The appeals are disposed of

depreciation in respect of block of assets at such percentage as is prescribed provided the asset is owned by the assessee and was used for the purpose of business. Section 50 of the Act was referred to and it was held that the main provision and sub- section (2

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

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

CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

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

50 and Section 43 were inadequate for the computation of capital gains in the case of a slump sale as it was not possible to determine the cost of acquisition in case of sale of an undertaking or business on a slump sale basis. To address this issue, Section 2(42C) and Section 50B of the Act were ITA 1003/2011

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 13.05.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 13.05.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 13.05.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 13.05.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S. I. K. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

depreciation either in Section 2(11) or in Section 32(1) and (iii) the provisions of Section 50 are applicable

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

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 section 32(2

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

2,50,00,200 Investment made during the period Cairn India Holdings Limited 26,681,87,10,140 Shares issued during the period (share capital and securities premium) Cairn UK Holdings Limited 20,723,78,73,500 Cairn U K Holdings Limited V DCIT ( International Taxation) New Delhi A Y 2007-08 P a g e | 28 (Investment made

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

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

2 (47) of the Act. The meaning of transfer in Section 269UA(f) has to be restricted for the purposes of Chapter XXC. The ITAT also held that merely because the payment of instalment was shown as lease rental, it could not be said that the instalments paid did not form part of the price. Once the price