Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

7A), Indian Companies Act (Sections 125(4)(f), 293 and 394), Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Section 14A), Cotton Textiles Companies Management of Undertaking, Liquidation and Reconstruction) Act, 1967 (sections 4(1), 5(1)(2). By the word 'undertaking is meant the entire organisation. These provisions indicate that the company whether it has a plant or whether it has an organisation

ACIT , CIRCLE 10, NEW DELHI vs. INDUS TOWER LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

depreciation only on written down value of assets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon‟ble High Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement by the company Court pursuant to Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 will have a statutory force binding on all the concerned and the sanction of the Court

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI INFRATEL LTD AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF ERSTWHILE INDUS TOWER LTD) ,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

depreciation only on written down value of assets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon‟ble High Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement by the company Court pursuant to Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 will have a statutory force binding on all the concerned and the sanction of the Court

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

depreciation only on written down value of assets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon‟ble High Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement by the company Court pursuant to Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 will have a statutory force binding on all the concerned and the sanction of the Court

GBT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,OSD, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

7A to section 43(1) of the Act, Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act and sixth proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, submitted that the depreciation

DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

7A) of section 80-IB or convention centres as defined in sub-section (7B) of section 80-IB or hospitals in rural areas as defined in sub-section (11B) of section 80-IB, shall be in Form No. 10CCB. (2) A separate report is to be furnished by each undertaking or enterprise of the assessee claiming deduction under section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery or plant

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery or plant

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. VRM INDIA LTD

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery or plant

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation only on written down value of\nassets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon'ble\nHigh Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement by the\ncompany Court pursuant to Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956\nwill have a statutory force binding on all the concerned and the sanction of\nthe Court

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAGAN AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5382/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Circle 4(1) No. 14, Dda Transport Centre, New Delhi. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj7818F & C.O. No.220/Del/2012 (In Ita No. 5382/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09) M/S Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Acit, No.14, Dda Transport Centre, Vs Circle-4(1), Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aabcj7818F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Deepak Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. [(7A

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

depreciation. The WDV of the assets cannot by any stretch of imagination be the actual cost for the purpose of Explanation 3 to section 43(1). The Explanation 3 does not provide the WDV of such assets to be the actual cost, but it was left to the wisdom of the AO to determine the actual cost having regard

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

depreciation. The WDV of the assets cannot by any stretch of imagination be the actual cost for the purpose of Explanation 3 to section 43(1). The Explanation 3 does not provide the WDV of such assets to be the actual cost, but it was left to the wisdom of the AO to determine the actual cost having regard

M/S. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

depreciation. The WDV of the assets cannot by any stretch of imagination be the actual cost for the purpose of Explanation 3 to section 43(1). The Explanation 3 does not provide the WDV of such assets to be the actual cost, but it was left to the wisdom of the AO to determine the actual cost having regard

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

depreciation. The WDV of the assets cannot by any stretch of imagination be the actual cost for the purpose of Explanation 3 to section 43(1). The Explanation 3 does not provide the WDV of such assets to be the actual cost, but it was left to the wisdom of the AO to determine the actual cost having regard

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD vs. AMRIT BANASPATI COMPANY LTD., NOIDA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

7A to section 43(1) of the Act. The assessee- company had accordingly, it is further observed by the auditors, wrongly claimed depreciation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI, CR BUILDING vs. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, GURGRAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation only on written down value of\nassets being transferred from PSCL to Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Hon'ble\nHigh Court held that the order sanctioning scheme of arrangement by the\ncompany Court pursuant to Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956\nwill have a statutory force binding on all the concerned and the sanction of\nthe Court

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AVANTHA POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Avantha Power & Infrastructure Circle-2(1), Ltd, New Delhi Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi Pan:Aaccb7469B (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation on the written down value of the assets as reflected in the books of transferor prior to the demerger. The Assessing Officer disallowed the excess deprecation holding that the scheme of demerger of the assessee did not fall within the scope of “demerger” as defined u/s 2(19AA) of the Act and consequently explanation 7A to Section