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

depreciation, therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer in computing the deduction under section 1 OB is correct. The reference of the CIT(A) to sub-section (6) of section 10B is misplaced as the said sub-section provides for the procedure to be adopted in the year immediately following the year in which the tax holiday comes

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. QUIPPO ENERGY (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4120/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Dcit, Quippo Energy (P) Ltd., D-2, 5Th Floor, Southern Park, Circle 20(2), Vs. New Delhi. Saket Place, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacq1675Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 79, no carry forward business loss shall be available to be set off and carried forward. 3. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. 3. The first issue

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1 vs. M/S BURDA DRUCK INDIA PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

depreciation‟ and „capital losses‟. 19. A perusal of Section 79 of the Act would show that unabsorbed depreciation and capital

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1 vs. M/S BURDA DRUCK INDIA PVT. LTD.

depreciation‟ and „capital losses‟. 19. A perusal of Section 79 of the Act would show that unabsorbed depreciation and capital

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

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

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.,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

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

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

79,46,069 to the arm’s length price of the ‘international transactions’ undertaken by the appellant with its associated enterprise on the basis of the order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) read with directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) passed under section 144C(5) of the Act. 8.1. That

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

79,46,069 to the arm’s length price of the ‘international transactions’ undertaken by the appellant with its associated enterprise on the basis of the order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) read with directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) passed under section 144C(5) of the Act. 8.1. That

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

79,46,069 to the arm’s length price of the ‘international transactions’ undertaken by the appellant with its associated enterprise on the basis of the order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) read with directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) passed under section 144C(5) of the Act. 8.1. That

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI vs. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

79,46,069 to the arm’s length price of the ‘international transactions’ undertaken by the appellant with its associated enterprise on the basis of the order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) read with directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) passed under section 144C(5) of the Act. 8.1. That

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

79,46,069 to the arm’s length price of the ‘international transactions’ undertaken by the appellant with its associated enterprise on the basis of the order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) read with directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) passed under section 144C(5) of the Act. 8.1. That

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

79,46,069 to the arm’s length price of the ‘international transactions’ undertaken by the appellant with its associated enterprise on the basis of the order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) read with directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) passed under section 144C(5) of the Act. 8.1. That

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 71 provide for setting off of losses from one head against income from another and the setting off of loss under one head of income is permitted against another head but during the same year. The brought forward losses whether on account of unabsorbed depreciation or business loss from earlier years are to be set off only against income

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 71 provide for setting off of losses from one head against income from another and the setting off of loss under one head of income is permitted against another head but during the same year. The brought forward losses whether on account of unabsorbed depreciation or business loss from earlier years are to be set off only against income