AREVA T & D INDIA LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and

section, it can safely be stated that the provision allows depreciation on both tangible and intangible assets and Clause (ii), as has been indicated hereinbefore, enumerates the intangible assets on which depreciation is allowable. The assets which are included in the definition of "intangible assets" includes, along with other things, any other business or commercial rights of similar nature

ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS P.LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

depreciation against the income assessed u/s 69. Accordingly, even if for the sake argument it is said that the surrender of Rs. 2,47,00,000/- is under sec 69, the assessee is still entitled to get setoff of loss/depreciation against the additions of Rs. 2,47,00,000/-. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has made

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

69,435 33,64,479 1,78,04,956 2003-04 10,68,72,831 10,68,72,831 In A.Y. 2005-06, the following incomes were returned : Income from Business Profit before depreciation and claim u/s 10B 58,85,78,364 Add : Addition made in the asstt. 18,79,767 Less Depreciation claimed 20,39,80,960 Net Business

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 43(1) of the Act is to be considered for allowing depreciation and not the cost to his predecessor/seller except where so required by specifically stated provision. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jogta Coal Co. Ltd versus CIT (1959) 36 ITR 521 and ruling

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

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 32(1)(ii) of the Act and hence depreciation on the same shall be eligible at the rate applicable to other intangible assets specified therein. The assessee has also placed reliance on various judicial precedents.” 68. The ld. DRP after considering the submissions of the assessee directed the AO to allow the depreciation on the goodwill by observing

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 32(1)(ii) of the Act and hence depreciation on the same shall be eligible at the rate applicable to other intangible assets specified therein. The assessee has also placed reliance on various judicial precedents.” 68. The ld. DRP after considering the submissions of the assessee directed the AO to allow the depreciation on the goodwill by observing

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. MAYFAIR RESORTS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

69 of the Act can be applied to tax the value of the investment made. 19. In the circumstance, we are inclined to agree with the Tribunal that the question whether an investment had been made or not is a matter of fact and the same cannot be presumed. " The ratio of the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable

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 @ 25%. It was further submitted that following the appellate orders for the earlier years, the Ld. CIT (A) had deleted the disallowance made by the assessing officer. 26.0.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that in assessee’s own case for the AY 1996-97, the Tribunal took the view that the model fee paid

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 @ 25%. It was further submitted that following the appellate orders for the earlier years, the Ld. CIT (A) had deleted the disallowance made by the assessing officer. 26.0.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that in assessee’s own case for the AY 1996-97, the Tribunal took the view that the model fee paid

PMV MALTINGS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee for ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 55 of the Act, in relation to the meaning of 'cost of acquisition' etc. This amendment recognizes that depreciation on goodwill in relation to the years prior to April 1, 2021 may have been claimed and allowed and provides for a mechanism for the adjustment of such depreciation claimed and allowed, for determining the cost of acquisition. 13.15. Therefore

PMV MALTINGS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee for ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 55 of the Act, in relation to the meaning of 'cost of acquisition' etc. This amendment recognizes that depreciation on goodwill in relation to the years prior to April 1, 2021 may have been claimed and allowed and provides for a mechanism for the adjustment of such depreciation claimed and allowed, for determining the cost of acquisition. 13.15. Therefore

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 254/148/143(3) of the Act giving effect to the said order of the Tribunal. In the said order, the assessing officer, after considering the entire material available on record, reiterated the findings given in original assessment and allowed depreciation on golf course @ 10% by treating the same as „building‟. On further appeal against the said order

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 254/148/143(3) of the Act giving effect to the said order of the Tribunal. In the said order, the assessing officer, after considering the entire material available on record, reiterated the findings given in original assessment and allowed depreciation on golf course @ 10% by treating the same as „building‟. On further appeal against the said order

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 254/148/143(3) of the Act giving effect to the said order of the Tribunal. In the said order, the assessing officer, after considering the entire material available on record, reiterated the findings given in original assessment and allowed depreciation on golf course @ 10% by treating the same as „building‟. On further appeal against the said order

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 254/148/143(3) of the Act giving effect to the said order of the Tribunal. In the said order, the assessing officer, after considering the entire material available on record, reiterated the findings given in original assessment and allowed depreciation on golf course @ 10% by treating the same as „building‟. On further appeal against the said order

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 254/148/143(3) of the Act giving effect to the said order of the Tribunal. In the said order, the assessing officer, after considering the entire material available on record, reiterated the findings given in original assessment and allowed depreciation on golf course @ 10% by treating the same as „building‟. On further appeal against the said order

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 254/148/143(3) of the Act giving effect to the said order of the Tribunal. In the said order, the assessing officer, after considering the entire material available on record, reiterated the findings given in original assessment and allowed depreciation on golf course @ 10% by treating the same as „building‟. On further appeal against the said order