ITO WARD - 23(3), NEW DELHI vs. SHREE BHAWANI POWER PROJECTS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

disallowing the deduction claimed by the Assessee and making the addition, mainly relied upon the facts that the report in form No. 10CCB, which was filed on 17.04.2019 in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act on dated 13.04.2019, was not in possession of the Assessee as it was neither filed earlier nor along with the return of income

SHRI BALAJI INDUSTRIES COMPLEX,BADAUN vs. CIT, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Balaji Industries Complex, Cit, Ismailpur, Moradabad-244001 Vs Badaun. (Pan: Abefs3007Q) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv. Department By: Smt. Meeta Singh C.I.T. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.09.2018

50B would apply and not the provisions of section 50C. Ld. AR also placed reliance on a plethora of judicial precedents to support his contention that the order passed u/s 263 deserves to be quashed. 4. In response, the Ld. C.I.T. DR supported the findings and observations of the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. as made in the impugned order and submitted

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

disallowed the depreciation claim by treating the scheme as one of the “demerger” u/s 2(19AA) of the Act thereby restricting the claim of 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

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

disallowed the depreciation claim by treating the scheme as one of the “demerger” u/s 2(19AA) of the Act thereby restricting the claim of 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

ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallow an amount of Rs. 58,95,130 under Section 37(1) of the Act on account of prior period expenditure. 14.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO has erred in summarily rejecting the appellant's contentions and not considering the binding judicial precedents which squarely applies to the facts

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 50B (1) profits or gains arising from a slump sale would be chargeable to income tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 17 of 32 term capital assets and which shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 50B (1) profits or gains arising from a slump sale would be chargeable to income tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 17 of 32 term capital assets and which shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 50B (1) profits or gains arising from a slump sale would be chargeable to income tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 17 of 32 term capital assets and which shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which

SEKHRI BROTHERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Sekhri Brothers Vs. Acit, Circle-49(1) B-57/4, New Delhi. Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi Pan Aamfs1085R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 50B, it is clear that being special provision for computation of total capital gain in respect of slump sale, entire sale consideration -ar. per agreement dated 31.12.2010 of Rs. 12,91,00,000/- became due to be considered for computing capital gain for the year under consideration. Further, though, the appellant was entitled to raise any objection with regard

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

disallowed the depreciation claim by treating the scheme as one of the “demerger” u/s 2(19AA) of the Act thereby restricting the claim of 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

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

disallowed the depreciation claim by treating the scheme as one of the “demerger” u/s 2(19AA) of the Act thereby restricting the claim of 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

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

disallowed the depreciation claim by treating the scheme as one of the “demerger” u/s 2(19AA) of the Act thereby restricting the claim of 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

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, DELHI vs. BSBK ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 50B of the Act at Rs. 7,50,24,307/-. Taking into account the consideration received at Rs. 62 crores and cost of acquisition being net asset value at Rs. 69,50,24,307/- and claimed the same as current year’s capital loss in the return. 8. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked

M/S. HANUNG PROCESSOR PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result the departmental appeal is dismissed and the appeal of the

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

50B is highly excessive and reasonable. 6. That without prejudice to above, the confirmation of the additions of Rs. 14,29,241/- & Rs.4,39,79,415/- is wholly unjust, unlawful & unwarranted and the additions so confirmed deserve to be deleted. 7. The assessee craves leave to add, delete and/or modifies any ground of appeal.” ITA No.-3056/Del/2011 1. “That

ACIT, NOIDA vs. M/S HANUNG PROCESSORS (P) LTD., NOIDA

In the result the departmental appeal is dismissed and the appeal of the

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

50B is highly excessive and reasonable. 6. That without prejudice to above, the confirmation of the additions of Rs. 14,29,241/- & Rs.4,39,79,415/- is wholly unjust, unlawful & unwarranted and the additions so confirmed deserve to be deleted. 7. The assessee craves leave to add, delete and/or modifies any ground of appeal.” ITA No.-3056/Del/2011 1. “That

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

50B the provision of explanation 6 to section 43(1) read with explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act were not attracted. Accordingly, the ld CIT(A) held that actual cost of acquisition in the hands of Assessee shall not be adopted for the purpose of claiming depreciation u/s 32 read with section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

50B the provision of explanation 6 to section 43(1) read with explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act were not attracted. Accordingly, the ld CIT(A) held that actual cost of acquisition in the hands of Assessee shall not be adopted for the purpose of claiming depreciation u/s 32 read with section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

50B the provision of explanation 6 to section 43(1) read with explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act were not attracted. Accordingly, the ld CIT(A) held that actual cost of acquisition in the hands of Assessee shall not be adopted for the purpose of claiming depreciation u/s 32 read with section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

50B the provision of explanation 6 to section 43(1) read with explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act were not attracted. Accordingly, the ld CIT(A) held that actual cost of acquisition in the hands of Assessee shall not be adopted for the purpose of claiming depreciation u/s 32 read with section