ITO, WARD-32(4), NEW DELHI vs. SWATI OBEROI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

53A of transfer of immovable property act are not satisfied. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition levied by the AO disallowing the deduction us 54F of the Act disregarding the report of Inspector wherein it has been reported that the property In Issue was in the possession of Smt. Purnima Mehra.” 2. Briefly stated

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation need not be computed as per Schedule XIV of the Companies Act in computing profits for the purpose of section 115J. However, what is significant to note is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made these observations while directing the Registry to place the civil appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions

SATISH DEV JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation need not be computed as per Schedule XIV of the Companies Act in computing profits for the purpose of section 115J. However, what is significant to note is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made these observations while directing the Registry to place the civil appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation need not be computed as per Schedule XIV of the Companies Act in computing profits for the purpose of section 115J. However, what is significant to note is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made these observations while directing the Registry to place the civil appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation need not be computed as per Schedule XIV of the Companies Act in computing profits for the purpose of section 115J. However, what is significant to note is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made these observations while directing the Registry to place the civil appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation need not be computed as per Schedule XIV of the Companies Act in computing profits for the purpose of section 115J. However, what is significant to note is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made these observations while directing the Registry to place the civil appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation need not be computed as per Schedule XIV of the Companies Act in computing profits for the purpose of section 115J. However, what is significant to note is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made these observations while directing the Registry to place the civil appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions

SAJAN KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation need not be computed as per Schedule XIV of the Companies Act in computing profits for the purpose of section 115J. However, what is significant to note is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made these observations while directing the Registry to place the civil appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

depreciation on the property. In this view of the matter, we have no doubt in our mind that the learned Tribunal went wrong in holding that for the purpose of applicability of section 54, registration of document is Imperative. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, Le, the assessee is entitled to exemption in terms of section 54." (emphasis

CIT LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT vs. INDIAN RAILWAY FINANCE CORP LTD

depreciation on office premises at NBCC place, Lodi Road, New Delhi? 19. The contention of the Revenue raised is that the respondent- assessee was not the owner of the building or in possession in part performance under Section 53A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Merely because the assessee did not have a registered sale deed cannot be a ground to deny depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. INDIAN SUGAR & GEN.INDU.EX.IMP

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Merely because the assessee did not have a registered sale deed cannot be a ground to deny depreciation

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

OCL INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.4068/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Dalmia Bharat Ltd., (Successor In The Interest Of Ocl India Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabco-8750-F बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(1), C R Building New Delhi 110095 आअसं.3767/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Uditnagar, Rourkela, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha 769012 बनाम Vs. Dalmia Bharat Ltd., Successor Of Ocl India Ltd., 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabco-8750-F

53A of the Act which provides for capitalization of foreign exchange gain/loss with the cost of asset is also not applicable since the asset was not acquired during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) held gain on cancellation of forward contract amounting to Rs.92,05,509/- as Revenue receipt chargeable to tax. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OCL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.4068/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Dalmia Bharat Ltd., (Successor In The Interest Of Ocl India Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabco-8750-F बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(1), C R Building New Delhi 110095 आअसं.3767/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Uditnagar, Rourkela, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha 769012 बनाम Vs. Dalmia Bharat Ltd., Successor Of Ocl India Ltd., 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabco-8750-F

53A of the Act which provides for capitalization of foreign exchange gain/loss with the cost of asset is also not applicable since the asset was not acquired during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) held gain on cancellation of forward contract amounting to Rs.92,05,509/- as Revenue receipt chargeable to tax. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted

M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishistylish Construction Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, 1027, Top Floor, Ward No. 8, Circle-9(1), Vs. Mehra Chowk, Mehrauli New Delhi Pan: Aaics4664H (Appellant) (Respondent)

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 (4 of 1882); or (vi) any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in, a cooperative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring, or enabling

M/S. HINDUSTAN VEGETABLE OILS CORP. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh

53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882 to state that there was a transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) thereby taxing long term capital gains. 11.The learned CIT (Appeal) has ignored the fact that legally the land had not been handed over to DMRC and furthermore Sale consideration figure was also not arrived at during the relevant year