M/S BLB LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavam/S Blb Ltd. Vs Acit 4764/23A, Ansari Road, Circle 3(1) Darya Ganj, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aaacb0184H & Acit Vs M/S Blb Ltd. Circle 3(1) 4764/23A, Ansari Road, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aaacb0184H

depreciation rates on computer, peripherals and accessories was entirely deleted; 5. The ground for recalculation of rebate u/s 88E was set aside to the file of the AO for re-computation; 6. The assessee’s contentions regarding the applicability of provisions of sec. 115JB was also accepted. ITA Nos. 2126 & 2901/D/10 M/s BLB Ltd. Page 3 of 28 4. Being

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. BLB LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavam/S Blb Ltd. Vs Acit 4764/23A, Ansari Road, Circle 3(1) Darya Ganj, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aaacb0184H & Acit Vs M/S Blb Ltd. Circle 3(1) 4764/23A, Ansari Road, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aaacb0184H

depreciation rates on computer, peripherals and accessories was entirely deleted; 5. The ground for recalculation of rebate u/s 88E was set aside to the file of the AO for re-computation; 6. The assessee’s contentions regarding the applicability of provisions of sec. 115JB was also accepted. ITA Nos. 2126 & 2901/D/10 M/s BLB Ltd. Page 3 of 28 4. Being

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

depreciation allowance amounting to Rs.60,39,49,813/-, which is much more than the statutory allowance proposed to disallowed to the assessee. (ii) That the above practice of treating this rental income as income from house property has been accepted by the department in all previous years, and in this regards your kind attention is invited to the binding judgment

RADIALS INTERNATIONAL vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management 2014:Dhc:2173-Db

Section 88E, as an alternative, was to fail since no evidence of the Securities Transaction Tax paid was furnished. It was reasoned that the purpose of a portfolio manager was to optimize returns of the investor. Since the motive of the transactions was the earning of profit and not a dividend, where the holding period was ranging from

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) DELHI-2, JHANDEWALAN NEW DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

depreciation allowance amounting to Rs.60,39,49,813/-, which is much more than the statutory allowance proposed to disallowed to the assessee. (ii) That the above practice of treating this rental income as income from house property has been accepted by the department in all previous years, and in this regards your kind attention is invited to the binding judgment

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MULTIPLEX CAPITAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed on merits

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

88E of the Act. However, the AO had calculated tax payable by the assessee at Rs. 1,76,040/- under the normal provisions of the Act and calculated tax payable u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs. 47,28,060/- which was duly paid by the assessee. While granting relief to the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance