ACIT CIRCLE 25-(1), DELHI vs. VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD. , GURGAON HARYANA

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 72A and thus effectively allowing benefit of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation to the assessee company as well as to M/s Gingersoft Media Pvt. Ltd. (transferor company) as it retained brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowance of licence fee could not have been made. Re: Section 35ABB of the Act per se not applicable to the present case 16. The provision of section 35ABB of the Act reads as follows: "Expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. 35ABB. (1) In respect of any expenditure, being in the nature of capital expenditure, incurred for acquiring

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. MS BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowance of licence fee could not have been made. Re: Section 35ABB of the Act per se not applicable to the present case 16. The provision of section 35ABB of the Act reads as follows: "Expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. 35ABB. (1) In respect of any expenditure, being in the nature of capital expenditure, incurred for acquiring

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowance of licence fee could not have been made. Re: Section 35ABB of the Act per se not applicable to the present case 16. The provision of section 35ABB of the Act reads as follows: "Expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. 35ABB. (1) In respect of any expenditure, being in the nature of capital expenditure, incurred for acquiring

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. M/S BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowance of licence fee could not have been made. Re: Section 35ABB of the Act per se not applicable to the present case 16. The provision of section 35ABB of the Act reads as follows: "Expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. 35ABB. (1) In respect of any expenditure, being in the nature of capital expenditure, incurred for acquiring

JITF URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6632/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Jitf Urban Infrastructure Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Services Limited Tax 28, Shivaji Marg, West Delhi, Circle 13(2), Central Revenue P.O: Ramesh Nagar Building Room No. 316A 3Rd Floor, New Delhi- 110015 Pan : Aaccj4785G I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002

disallowed with following relevant findings :- “4.6 The appellant ahs stated that in view of the aforesaid provisions it is entitled to claim brought forward losses amounting to Rs. 27,48,65,602/- (to the extent they are relatable to the assessee company). It is, however, seen that this amount of loss was not claimed due to the error

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI vs. JITF URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6632/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Jitf Urban Infrastructure Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Services Limited Tax 28, Shivaji Marg, West Delhi, Circle 13(2), Central Revenue P.O: Ramesh Nagar Building Room No. 316A 3Rd Floor, New Delhi- 110015 Pan : Aaccj4785G I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002

disallowed with following relevant findings :- “4.6 The appellant ahs stated that in view of the aforesaid provisions it is entitled to claim brought forward losses amounting to Rs. 27,48,65,602/- (to the extent they are relatable to the assessee company). It is, however, seen that this amount of loss was not claimed due to the error

DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

72A,72AB and 72AA deal with the exceptions. In respect of carry forward of loss and set off in the cases of amalgamation or demerger etc. Sec.72A is attracted. In this section for the definition ITA Nos. 5416 & 5417/Del/2017 along with other cases Accumulated Loss, the loss under the Profits and Gains of Business or Profession(Not being a loss

DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

72A,72AB and 72AA deal with the exceptions. In respect of carry forward of loss and set off in the cases of amalgamation or demerger etc. Sec.72A is attracted. In this section for the definition ITA Nos. 5416 & 5417/Del/2017 along with other cases Accumulated Loss, the loss under the Profits and Gains of Business or Profession(Not being a loss

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI, I.P.ESTATE vs. BUREAU VERITAS CONSUMER PRODUCTS SERVICES(INDIA) PVT. LTD., LAJPAT NAGAR

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

72A,72AB and 72AA deal with the exceptions. In respect of carry forward of loss and set off in the cases of amalgamation or demerger etc. Sec.72A is attracted. In this section for the definition ITA Nos. 5416 & 5417/Del/2017 along with other cases Accumulated Loss, the loss under the Profits and Gains of Business or Profession(Not being a loss

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-I vs. MGF AUTOMOBILES LTD

72A(2)(b)(i) which requires the amalgamated company to hold continuously for a minimum period of five years from the date of amalgamation “at least three fourths of the book value of fixed assets of the amalgamating company acquired in a scheme of amalgamation.” 4. For AY 2004-05 returns were to be filed on or before 30th October

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-I vs. MGF AUTOMOBILES LTD

72A(2)(b)(i) which requires the amalgamated company to hold continuously for a minimum period of five years from the date of amalgamation “at least three fourths of the book value of fixed assets of the amalgamating company acquired in a scheme of amalgamation.” 4. For AY 2004-05 returns were to be filed on or before 30th October

DION GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(2), NEW DELHI

Appeals are hereby disposed of in the aforesaid

section 14A of the Act by not appreciating the fact that at best the disallowance was required to be restricted to Rs.5,739,629 as offered by the Appellant being expenditure related to earning of exempt dividend income as computed by the appellant after excluding strategic investments wherefrom no dividend income was earned during the year, in the course

DION GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(2), NEW DELHI

Appeals are hereby disposed of in the aforesaid

section 14A of the Act by not appreciating the fact that at best the disallowance was required to be restricted to Rs.5,739,629 as offered by the Appellant being expenditure related to earning of exempt dividend income as computed by the appellant after excluding strategic investments wherefrom no dividend income was earned during the year, in the course

BEACON HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

disallow the brought forward accumulated losses of Amalgamating Company aggregating of Rs 618,27,952/- which was not claimed by the assesse u/s 72A of the Act, on the ground that section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. BEACON HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

disallow the brought forward accumulated losses of Amalgamating Company aggregating of Rs 618,27,952/- which was not claimed by the assesse u/s 72A of the Act, on the ground that section

NIHON PARKERIZING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT (OSD), CIRCLE-18(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

section 72A(2) have been met. He also noted that submissions have also been given in support of the contention that conditions as laid down in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of section72A(2) which relate to the conditions for amalgamated company have also been met. However, he noted that no certificate in Form No.62 was submitted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. TRIMASTER PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner Of Trimaster Private Limited, Income Tax, Room No.192A, 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, First Floor, C.R. Building, Ito, Vs New Delhi-110020 Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacn0138P Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.119/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.955/Del/2025 ) [Assessment Year: 2021-22 Trimaster Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, Tax, Room No.192A, First Floor, New Delhi-110020 Vs C.R. Building, Ito, Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacn0138P Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Nitini Kumar Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2026

72A, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause (i); and (iv) by claiming the depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed.” Here it is important to state that clause