TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

price of the asset was fixed it was between the parties to decide about the terms of payments which unless prohibited in the statute cannot be gone behind. 15. On an examination of the lease deed, the ITAT held that the leasehold rights in the business assets were sold for Rs.20.729 crore which was undoubtedly agreed to be paid

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

price of `42.50 Crores was attributable to any particular asset including any depreciable asset and therefore provisions of Section 50(2) were not attracted. It also contended that it was an old concern for more than 36 months, its transfer would give long term capital gain. The assessee also relied on Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat v. M/s. Artex Manufacturing

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

50B of the Act on the ground 2010:DHC:6300-DB Assessment Year 2000-01. The Tribunal, on the other hand, held that Section 50 would not be applicable in the instant case, as it was not a case of transferring depreciable asset, but for transferring the entire unit as a whole and the sale consideration settled between the parties

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

50B of the Act. The revaluation of ABTL's investment in Indus at Rs. 7330,75,56,000/- ason 31-3-2010 which was apparently because of the transfer of PIAs from the assessee to Indus was treated as the full consideration and the book value of the PIAs of Rs. 1622,77,60,000/- was taken as the cost

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

50B of the Act. The revaluation of ABTL's investment in Indus at Rs. 7330,75,56,000/- ason 31-3-2010 which was apparently because of the transfer of PIAs from the assessee to Indus was treated as the full consideration and the book value of the PIAs of Rs. 1622,77,60,000/- was taken as the cost

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

50B of the Act. The revaluation of ABTL's investment in Indus at Rs. 7330,75,56,000/- ason 31-3-2010 which was apparently because of the transfer of PIAs from the assessee to Indus was treated as the full consideration and the book value of the PIAs of Rs. 1622,77,60,000/- was taken as the cost

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

price of plant & machinery at Rs. 24,96,000/-. (c) . The Sale deed of the property shows stamp duty valuation of the entire property at Rs. 2,89,93,000/- and as the stamp duty value of Land is Rs. 24,61,000/- and the valuation of Planting &Machinery is at Rs. 24,96,000/-, the remaining is being considered

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

transfer pricing study required to be maintained u/s 92D of the Act. 5. That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in application of inappropriate filters based on turnover, different financial year end, service income export sales and employee cost for identifying companies comparable to the Appellant. 6. That

M/S. VIRTUAL SOFTWARE & TRAINING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -17(4), M/S. Virtual Software & Training Pvt. Ltd., N-136, Panchsheel New Delhi Park, New Delhi Pan : Aaacv8390F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. L.K. Paonam, Ar; K.R. Shukla, Adv.; & Bhupendra Respondent By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 26/03/2013 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2001-02 Raising Various Grounds. The Assessee Revised Its Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 07/09/2015, Which Were Admitted. The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under:

transferred its undertaking to M/s Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. (formerly known as “Suri Capital and Leasing Ltd”) against allotment of 45 lakh equity shares of the face value of Rs. 10 per share. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (for short “the Act”), the Assessing Officer treated the transaction as slump sale under

LEDVANCE PRIVATE LIMTED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

price of the transaction and misconstruing the provisions of Section 50B of the Act: 4. The Ld. AO erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at INR 14,30,40,000 and not considering the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation amounting to INR 54.46.60.428 available with the Appellant for set-off while computing the assessed income

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MINDWORKS GLOBAL MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaidcit Mindworks Global Media A Circle-6(1), Services Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi Vs. E- 24, Second Floor, Greater Kailash Enclave, New Delhi Gir/Pan: Aadcm9970H (Appellant) (Respondent) A Appellant By : Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Neeraj Sharma, Sh. Manpreet Bagga Cas. Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2017

price of the share. 4.7. The transactions are related to issuance of share capital which is the source of Funding and not a case of transfer of any undertaking or part of undertaking so as to attract provisions of section 50A and/or 50B

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

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

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