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

58,75,529/-paid towards intangible be considered as goodwill and the Tribunal following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra) upheld that assessee’s contention the depreciation could be claimed of the goodwill, but remanded the matter for purpose of the valuation of the goodwill. The Hon’ble High Court

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

58,194 and Rs.6667,49,45,379/- respectively declared by the appellant in the return of income. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/DRP grossly erred in making disallowance of Rs.212,15,413 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules

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

section 10B of the Act), instead of Rs.64,80,02,118/- declared by the assessee. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.11.2006, declaring nil income after adjustment of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation to the tune of Rs.2,01,54,617/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were

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

58,600 3.0.2 It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance made by the assessing officer under section 14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.3,26,03,500/- being 0.5% of the total investments on the assumption that certain Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT administrative expenses must have been incurred

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

58,600 3.0.2 It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance made by the assessing officer under section 14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.3,26,03,500/- being 0.5% of the total investments on the assumption that certain Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT administrative expenses must have been incurred

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:

section 50. On the other hand, the Companies Act mandates claiming deduction for loss or crediting gain on the sale of each asset separately to its Profit and Loss account, which is not in excess of difference between the original cost and the w.d.v. of such asset. 5.22.6. With the above legal position at hand, let us evaluate the contention

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:

section 50. On the other hand, the Companies Act mandates claiming deduction for loss or crediting gain on the sale of each asset separately to its Profit and Loss account, which is not in excess of difference between the original cost and the w.d.v. of such asset. 5.22.6. With the above legal position at hand, let us evaluate the contention

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 5 of the income tax act in case of either business income or u/s 28. Hence, according to us, the membership fee income of the assessee should be chargeable to tax in the year to which it pertains. Therefore, we reverse the finding of the learned CIT – A in holding that that a sum of INR 3 5288416 received

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 5 of the income tax act in case of either business income or u/s 28. Hence, according to us, the membership fee income of the assessee should be chargeable to tax in the year to which it pertains. Therefore, we reverse the finding of the learned CIT – A in holding that that a sum of INR 3 5288416 received

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 5 of the income tax act in case of either business income or u/s 28. Hence, according to us, the membership fee income of the assessee should be chargeable to tax in the year to which it pertains. Therefore, we reverse the finding of the learned CIT – A in holding that that a sum of INR 3 5288416 received

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 5 of the income tax act in case of either business income or u/s 28. Hence, according to us, the membership fee income of the assessee should be chargeable to tax in the year to which it pertains. Therefore, we reverse the finding of the learned CIT – A in holding that that a sum of INR 3 5288416 received

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 5 of the income tax act in case of either business income or u/s 28. Hence, according to us, the membership fee income of the assessee should be chargeable to tax in the year to which it pertains. Therefore, we reverse the finding of the learned CIT – A in holding that that a sum of INR 3 5288416 received

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 5 of the income tax act in case of either business income or u/s 28. Hence, according to us, the membership fee income of the assessee should be chargeable to tax in the year to which it pertains. Therefore, we reverse the finding of the learned CIT – A in holding that that a sum of INR 3 5288416 received

VEDANTA LTD ,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

58. Facts show that the assessee had acquired and installed some of the new plant and machinery eligible for additional depreciation under section

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 vs. ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAGPUR) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

58,88,959/-. The same was assessed under section l43(3) of the Act on 23.12.2011 at a loss of Rs.34,24,76,200/-, by making disallowance of Rs.34,12,759/- on account of preliminary expenditure. During the said assessment proceedings, no interference was made by the AD on other issues including depreciation

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

depreciation under that section. 43. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court from para 12 to 15 are as under:- “12. In the present case, it is seen that the assessee vide slump sale agreement dated 30th June, 2004, acquired, as a going concern, 18 ITA.No.4771/Del./2018 Geodis Overseas Private Limited, Gurgaon. the transmission and distribution business

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(2) of the Act. 4. During assessment proceedings, the appellant vide application dated 08.11.2016 filed revision of computation of income, declaring total loss of Rs. 2,32,00,58,863/-. In the revised computation, the appellant withdrew the claim of amortization of expenditure of Rs. 18,51,12,122/- and instead, on the basis of the judicial precedents

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

depreciation under that section. 43. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court from para 12 to 15 are as under:- “12. In the present case, it is seen that the assessee vide slump sale agreement dated 30th June, 2004, acquired, as a going concern, the transmission and distribution business of the transferor Company w.e.f. 1 st April