DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

7 of section 80IC will only come into play where services have been provided by HO to eligible unit. However, in present case, services have been rendered by third party at market price and head office is merely allocating proportionate cost to eligible units and as such there is no occasion to compute fair market value of these costs since

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

7. Second ground of appeal is with respect to disallowance u/s 40A (3) of The Act amounting to Rs 33,90,712/–. learned assessing officer noted that special auditor has reported that expenses aggregating to INR 33,90,712/– have been made in violation of provisions of section 40A (3) of The Act. In submission of assessee, there

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. QUIPPO OIL AND GAS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

7. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ground No. 1 and 4 are covered by the order of the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have heard the parties perused the material available on record. 4 Quippo Oil & Gas Infrastructire 9. The Ground No. 1 is regarding deletion of disallowance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

7 of 13 sections do not cover or deal with procedure of setting off of unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance

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

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and

7 of 31 and to file its justification for the sum claimed. (c) the AO further noticed that the assessee Company claimed depreciation to the tune of Rs.14,17,500/- under Section

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

7) read with section 801A(10) of the Act. 2.4. Based on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the various judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant in this regard. 2.5. Without prejudice to Grounds 2.1 to 2.4 above, based on the facts and circumstances

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

7) read with section 801A(10) of the Act. 2.4. Based on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the various judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant in this regard. 2.5. Without prejudice to Grounds 2.1 to 2.4 above, based on the facts and circumstances

DABUR INDIA LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: We Consider The Submissions Made In Support Of The Appeal The Following Facts Require To Be Noted:- 2.1 The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Herbal Products & Cosmetics. On 30.11.2000 Assessee Filed Its Return For Assessment Year 2000-01 Wherein, It Declared An Income Of Rs 12,15,25,093/-. On 10.5.2001 The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Act As The Returned Income. However, Notices Were Issued Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. 2.2 In Response To The Aforesaid Notices, Hearing Was Attended By An Authorized Representative Before The Assessing Officer. 2008:Dhc:2521

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act, and that, it cannot be thrust on the Assessee while determining the eligible profits and gains for the purpose of ascertaining the amount deductible under Section 80 IB and 80 HHC. 1st contention 7

GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

depreciation on goodwill has held as under:- “7. It is overt from the command of clause (ii) of section 32(1) of the Act that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

depreciable asset? (3) Whether provisions of Section 50 were applicable to the transfer of sale of Sonepat Unit by the assessee?” 7

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

depreciable asset? (3) Whether provisions of Section 50 were applicable to the transfer of sale of Sonepat Unit by the assessee?” 7

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,HARYANA vs. DCIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation allowed in respect of any assert for different assessment years shall not exceed the actual cost of the said asset: Provided further that the undertaking specified in clause (i) of sub-section(1) of section 32 of the Act may, instead of 64 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7

DCIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation allowed in respect of any assert for different assessment years shall not exceed the actual cost of the said asset: Provided further that the undertaking specified in clause (i) of sub-section(1) of section 32 of the Act may, instead of 64 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation allowed in respect of any assert for different assessment years shall not exceed the actual cost of the said asset: Provided further that the undertaking specified in clause (i) of sub-section(1) of section 32 of the Act may, instead of 64 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation allowed in respect of any assert for different assessment years shall not exceed the actual cost of the said asset: Provided further that the undertaking specified in clause (i) of sub-section(1) of section 32 of the Act may, instead of 64 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED vs. ADDL. CIT,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation allowed in respect of any assert for different assessment years shall not exceed the actual cost of the said asset: Provided further that the undertaking specified in clause (i) of sub-section(1) of section 32 of the Act may, instead of 64 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7

ACIT, HISAR vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation allowed in respect of any assert for different assessment years shall not exceed the actual cost of the said asset: Provided further that the undertaking specified in clause (i) of sub-section(1) of section 32 of the Act may, instead of 64 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7

DCIT, HISAR vs. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD., HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

depreciation allowed in respect of any assert for different assessment years shall not exceed the actual cost of the said asset: Provided further that the undertaking specified in clause (i) of sub-section(1) of section 32 of the Act may, instead of 64 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7