CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

depreciation and losses of the unit, the income from which was not eligible for deduction under Section 10A cannot be set off against the current profit of the eligible unit for computing the deduction under Section 10A. Referring to its earlier judgment in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) it was held as under: - “2. Section

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

depreciation and losses of the unit, the income from which was not eligible for deduction under Section 10A cannot be set off against the current profit of the eligible unit for computing the deduction under Section 10A. Referring to its earlier judgment in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) it was held as under: - “2. Section

LOGICS POWERAMR PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Logics Poweramr Private Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Limited Tax, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 7, Sarswati Bhawan 1/4 Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar 48/1, 48/2, East Delhi Laxmi Nagar Beratenaagrahara Begur, Delhi-110092 Hosur Rd. Uttarahalli Hobli, Pan No.Aadcl3204D Bangalore-560100 (Appellant) (Respondent)

80A(5) and 80AC, it emerges that to make a claim u/s 801A, the assessee is simply required to file the return of income u/s 139(1) and the claim can be made in the revised return of income also i.e. there is no bar for making the claim even in the return of income filed

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 subject to the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 72 and sub-Section (3) of Section 73 of the Act. Sections 30, 31 and 32 (A) to 35(E) provide for rebates, allowances and deductions under various heads. Section 36 provides for certain “other deductions” specified therein while, computing the income referred to in Section 28. Section

M/S. SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

CIT vs. KRIBHCO

depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate while computing the total income on the basis that the total income spoken of by sub-section (1) means commercial profits.” 27. It was accordingly observed that on proper construction of Section 80E(1) full effect has to be give to the word „such profits‟ and this was not possible without computing the income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate while computing the total income on the basis that the total income spoken of by sub-section (1) means commercial profits.” 27. It was accordingly observed that on proper construction of Section 80E(1) full effect has to be give to the word „such profits‟ and this was not possible without computing the income

BSC C&C JV,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Bsc C&C Joint Venture, Vs. Acit, 74, Hemkunt Colony, Circle-62(1), New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadfb8115G Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2025

section 80A(5) is to M/s. BSC C&C Joint Venture make a claim, which is a substantive provision. Hence the same is to be construed as mandatory provision in order to entertain a claim of deduction in respect of certain incomes such as deduction u/s 80IA as is the case in the appeal before us. This view of ours

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is\nallowed

Depreciation as per Income Tax Act\n(1,223,292,202)\n(814,871,495) (408,420,707)\nLess: Gratuity paid during the year\n(3,035,806)\n(2,655,227)\n(380,579)\nLess: Water cess liability paid during the year-u/s 43B\n(307,709)\n(307,709)\nLess: Water cess written back during the year

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

1) only. Ex consequenti, the contention that since section 80P is not covered under section 80AC, the deduction under this section becomes automatically allowable without adhering to the requirement of section 80A(5), is bereft of force and hence dismissed. 10. Now I advert to the requirements of section 80A(5), which stipulates that no deduction under other sections including

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

1) only. Ex consequenti, the contention that since section 80P is not covered under section 80AC, the deduction under this section becomes automatically allowable without adhering to the requirement of section 80A(5), is bereft of force and hence dismissed. 10. Now I advert to the requirements of section 80A(5), which stipulates that no deduction under other sections including

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

1) only. Ex consequenti, the contention that since section 80P is not covered under section 80AC, the deduction under this section becomes automatically allowable without adhering to the requirement of section 80A(5), is bereft of force and hence dismissed. 10. Now I advert to the requirements of section 80A(5), which stipulates that no deduction under other sections including

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

1) only. Ex consequenti, the contention that since section 80P is not covered under section 80AC, the deduction under this section becomes automatically allowable without adhering to the requirement of section 80A(5), is bereft of force and hence dismissed. 10. Now I advert to the requirements of section 80A(5), which stipulates that no deduction under other sections including

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL LTD., HIMACHAL PRADESH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation was claimed in the earlier years and the WDV of other plant and machinery was separately shown at Rs. 14,78,36,000/-. The gross block of plant and machinery as on 12.4.2008 was Rs. 24,77,55,000/- and the investments made in new plant and machinery on account of substantial expansion during the year has been shown

M/S. HIMALYA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation was claimed in the earlier years and the WDV of other plant and machinery was separately shown at Rs. 14,78,36,000/-. The gross block of plant and machinery as on 12.4.2008 was Rs. 24,77,55,000/- and the investments made in new plant and machinery on account of substantial expansion during the year has been shown

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL LTD., HIMACHAL PRADESH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation was claimed in the earlier years and the WDV of other plant and machinery was separately shown at Rs. 14,78,36,000/-. The gross block of plant and machinery as on 12.4.2008 was Rs. 24,77,55,000/- and the investments made in new plant and machinery on account of substantial expansion during the year has been shown

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

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

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

80A (5) of the Act does not bar the assessee from revising the computation for deduction made under the provision. 43. It was submitted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court while dismissing the department appeal has also discussed the order in the case of Influence Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 55 Taxman.com 192 (Delhi) and Principal Commissioner of Income

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF ASSETS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Depreciation Less : Other Business Expenditure - Marketing 9,26,78,290 Service Charges - Land Lease 7,36,63,588 713,19,78,691 Rent Income from business -130,43,39,196 Gross total income After set-off with business loss NIL Less : Deduction u/s 341,06,90,452 80IAB as claimed in 8 ITA Nos.8524 to 8526/Del./2019 ITR restricted