Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

Section 50B of the Act. He also argued that the undertaking was to be treated as different from other assets and where entire undertaking is sold, no value was attributable to any particular assets including any depreciable

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

50B, section\n80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section\n80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, section 115JB or\nsection115VW or to give a notice under clause (a) of\nsub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act, he shall furnish\nthe same electronically.]\"\n\n10.\nAs is manifest from the aforesaid, it was the Proviso\ninserted

SHRI BALAJI INDUSTRIES COMPLEX,BADAUN vs. CIT, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Balaji Industries Complex, Cit, Ismailpur, Moradabad-244001 Vs Badaun. (Pan: Abefs3007Q) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv. Department By: Smt. Meeta Singh C.I.T. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.09.2018

depreciable items had to be taxed under ‘short term capital gains’. The Ld. Pr. C.I.T. was also of the view that the stamp duty value of the property was to be deemed as full value of the consideration for the purpose of section 48 r/w section 50C of the Act. The Ld. Pr. C.I.T. directed the Assessing Officer to examine

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

depreciation only on written down value of assets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon‟ble High Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement by the company Court pursuant to Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 will have a statutory force binding on all the concerned and the sanction of the Court

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

depreciation only on written down value of assets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon‟ble High Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement by the company Court pursuant to Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 will have a statutory force binding on all the concerned and the sanction of the Court

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

depreciation only on written down value of assets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon‟ble High Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement by the company Court pursuant to Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 will have a statutory force binding on all the concerned and the sanction of the Court

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation only on written down value of\nassets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon'ble\nHigh Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement by the\ncompany Court pursuant to Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956\nwill have a statutory force binding on all the concerned and the sanction of\nthe Court

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD.

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

depreciable asset only". The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (Land Department): (1965) 57 ITR 299 (SC) and held that Section 50(1) of the ITA 12/2003 Page 11 of 28 Act was inapplicable. The Tribunal also noticed the provisions of Section 50B

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. CADDIE HOTELS PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

section 50B(3) of the Act has adopted written down value of the block asset in case of the depreciable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI, CR BUILDING vs. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, GURGRAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation only on written down value of\nassets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon'ble\nHigh Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement by the\ncompany Court pursuant to Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956\nwill have a statutory force binding on all the concerned and the sanction of\nthe Court

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XI vs. SANGEETA WIG

50B of the I.T. Act and under the said section, she furnished the Report of a Chartered 2012:DHC:7128-DB ITA 667/2012 Page 4 of 6 Accountant in Form 3 CEA, determining the net worth at `4,73,725/-, taking the Written Down Value of depreciable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XI vs. SANGEETA WIG

50B of the I.T. Act and under the said section, she furnished the Report of a Chartered 2012:DHC:7128-DB ITA 667/2012 Page 4 of 6 Accountant in Form 3 CEA, determining the net worth at `4,73,725/-, taking the Written Down Value of depreciable

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

depreciable land, buildings, plant and machinery (etc.). There may be different period of holding in respect of such assets and different computation will be required for computing capital gains. It is, therefore, necessary to apportion the sale consideration in respect of various assets which together form the leasehold business assets. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in order

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

depreciable land, buildings, plant and machinery (etc.). There may be different period of holding in respect of such assets and different computation will be required for computing capital gains. It is, therefore, necessary to apportion the sale consideration in respect of various assets which together form the leasehold business assets. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in order

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

depreciable land, buildings, plant and machinery (etc.). There may be different period of holding in respect of such assets and different computation will be required for computing capital gains. It is, therefore, necessary to apportion the sale consideration in respect of various assets which together form the leasehold business assets. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in order

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

50B the provision of explanation 6 to section 43(1) read with explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act were not attracted. Accordingly, the ld CIT(A) held that actual cost of acquisition in the hands of Assessee shall not be adopted for the purpose of claiming depreciation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

50B the provision of explanation 6 to section 43(1) read with explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act were not attracted. Accordingly, the ld CIT(A) held that actual cost of acquisition in the hands of Assessee shall not be adopted for the purpose of claiming depreciation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

50B the provision of explanation 6 to section 43(1) read with explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act were not attracted. Accordingly, the ld CIT(A) held that actual cost of acquisition in the hands of Assessee shall not be adopted for the purpose of claiming depreciation