DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

43D which includes depreciation under section 32, the assessee is entitled is the case pressed before us by the senior counsel appearing for the assessee. We have no doubt in our mind that business income of charitable trust also has to be computed in the same manner as provided under section 29 of the Income-tax Act. However

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX LAXMI NAGAR DELHI vs. TCI FOUNDATION 10 RAM BAGH AZAD MARKET ROHTAK ROAD NEW DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

43D which includes depreciation under section 32, the assessee is entitled is the case pressed before us by the senior counsel appearing for the assessee. We have no doubt in our mind that business income of charitable trust also has to be computed in the same manner as provided under section 29 of the Income-tax Act. However

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. INDIAN TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION

43D which includes depreciation under section 32, the assessee is entitled is the case pressed before us by the senior counsel appearing for the assessee. We have no doubt in our mind that business income of charitable trust also has to be computed in the same manner as provided under section 29 of the Income-tax Act. However

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

68,98,037 50,90,742 Less : Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation 14,22,71,036 Gross Total Loss (13,71,80,294) From the above table, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10B without considering the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and that the assessee has not completely followed section 32(2) for computing

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

43D, which apparently excludes the operation of section 44D of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that taxation on Gross Basis in the instant case as upheld by the CIT(A) is an arbitrary and absurd interpretation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions in cases of Boston Consulting 94 ITD 31 (Mum) and Horizontal Drilling

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

43D, which apparently excludes the operation of section 44D of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that taxation on Gross Basis in the instant case as upheld by the CIT(A) is an arbitrary and absurd interpretation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions in cases of Boston Consulting 94 ITD 31 (Mum) and Horizontal Drilling

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

43D, which apparently excludes the operation of section 44D of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that taxation on Gross Basis in the instant case as upheld by the CIT(A) is an arbitrary and absurd interpretation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions in cases of Boston Consulting 94 ITD 31 (Mum) and Horizontal Drilling

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

43D, which apparently excludes the operation of section 44D of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that taxation on Gross Basis in the instant case as upheld by the CIT(A) is an arbitrary and absurd interpretation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions in cases of Boston Consulting 94 ITD 31 (Mum) and Horizontal Drilling

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

43D, which apparently excludes the operation of section 44D of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that taxation on Gross Basis in the instant case as upheld by the CIT(A) is an arbitrary and absurd interpretation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions in cases of Boston Consulting 94 ITD 31 (Mum) and Horizontal Drilling

M/S SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

43D, which apparently excludes the operation of section 44D of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that taxation on Gross Basis in the instant case as upheld by the CIT(A) is an arbitrary and absurd interpretation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions in cases of Boston Consulting 94 ITD 31 (Mum) and Horizontal Drilling

M/S SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

43D, which apparently excludes the operation of section 44D of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that taxation on Gross Basis in the instant case as upheld by the CIT(A) is an arbitrary and absurd interpretation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions in cases of Boston Consulting 94 ITD 31 (Mum) and Horizontal Drilling

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

43D, which apparently excludes the operation of section 44D of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that taxation on Gross Basis in the instant case as upheld by the CIT(A) is an arbitrary and absurd interpretation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions in cases of Boston Consulting 94 ITD 31 (Mum) and Horizontal Drilling

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

43D, which apparently excludes the operation of section 44D of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that taxation on Gross Basis in the instant case as upheld by the CIT(A) is an arbitrary and absurd interpretation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions in cases of Boston Consulting 94 ITD 31 (Mum) and Horizontal Drilling

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

43D, which apparently excludes the operation of section 44D of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that taxation on Gross Basis in the instant case as upheld by the CIT(A) is an arbitrary and absurd interpretation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions in cases of Boston Consulting 94 ITD 31 (Mum) and Horizontal Drilling

M/S C&S ELECTRIC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed while appeal filed

Bench: Shri P.K.Bansal & Sh. Amit Shuklac & S Electric Ltd., Vs Dcit Ltu, (Formerly Known As Controls & Switchgear New Delhi. Co.Ltd.), 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Iii, New Delhi. Pan-Aaacc0909K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu), Vs C &S Electric Ltd., Nbcc Plaza, Pushp (Formerly Known As M/S. Control & Vihar, Sector-Iii, Switchgear Co. Ltd.), New Delhi-110017. 22, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaacc0909K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,840/-. By applying the provision of section 80IA(8) as according to him, the transfer from one unit to another unit should have been done at market value. When the matter went before the Ld. CIT(A), Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the reduction of the deduction u/s 80IC by Rs.2,34,511/- in respect of BT Division

DCIT(LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C&S ELECTRIC LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed while appeal filed

Bench: Shri P.K.Bansal & Sh. Amit Shuklac & S Electric Ltd., Vs Dcit Ltu, (Formerly Known As Controls & Switchgear New Delhi. Co.Ltd.), 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Iii, New Delhi. Pan-Aaacc0909K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu), Vs C &S Electric Ltd., Nbcc Plaza, Pushp (Formerly Known As M/S. Control & Vihar, Sector-Iii, Switchgear Co. Ltd.), New Delhi-110017. 22, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaacc0909K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,840/-. By applying the provision of section 80IA(8) as according to him, the transfer from one unit to another unit should have been done at market value. When the matter went before the Ld. CIT(A), Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the reduction of the deduction u/s 80IC by Rs.2,34,511/- in respect of BT Division

RRB ENERGY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Kuldip Singh

43D and that includes depreciation as well. The above table also shows that the assessee is not even debiting notional maintenance charges. It may be noted that the assessee company cannot reserve the right to claim the benefit u/s 80-IA as per either of the two versions" as mentioned above. The assessee's claim is of deduction

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishia N D Shri K. Narasimha Chary

68. Ground number three of the appeal is with respect to deletion of disallowance of ₹ 1 27862104/– made by the assessing officer on account of dividend income under section 14 A of the income tax act. Facts put in narrow shell, shows that assessee has earned a dividend income of ₹ 1 7081012/– as exempt. During the course of assessment