COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

124(5) read with Section 120(1). No order under Section 127 or even Section124(2) was called for. Such an interpretation and the view of the law satisfies the twin test of (i) the convenience of the assessee, and (ii) the exigencies of tax collection.‖ 51. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the following propositions emerge: (1) The respondent

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

124 to 127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated by learned A.O. under Section 153C are bad in law and against the statutory provisions. 3.(ii) That without prejudice to the above

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

124 to 127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated by learned A.O. under Section 153C are bad in law and against the statutory provisions. 3.(ii) That without prejudice to the above

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

124 to 127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated by learned A.O. under Section 153C are bad in law and against the statutory provisions. 3.(ii) That without prejudice to the above

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

124 to 127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated by learned A.O. under Section 153C are bad in law and against the statutory provisions. 3.(ii) That without prejudice to the above

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. ISERVICES INVESTMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

124 to 127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated by learned A.O. under Section 153C are bad in law and against the statutory provisions. 3.(ii) That without prejudice to the above

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

124 to 127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated by learned A.O. under Section 153C are bad in law and against the statutory provisions. 3.(ii) That without prejudice to the above

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

TDS deducted by EPSL was also kept in abeyance. In this return, it was claimed that the capital gains arising from transfer of shares in VEL was not chargeable to tax in India as per Article 13(4) of the tax treaty. The assessment proceedings in both the cases were taken up subsequent to the decision

COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX vs. DEEPAK VERMA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3) of Section 17 of the Act. Sub Clause (B) of clause (iii) enumerates that when any „amount‟ is due or received after cession of the employment it is treated as „profits in lieu of salary‟. The expression used here is “amount‟. Therefore, when an amount is received by an employer whether due or not, on the cession

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEWBURY HOLDING TWO LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

124 to 127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated by learned A.O. under Section 153C are bad in law and against the statutory provisions. 3.(ii) That without prejudice to the above

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

124 to 127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated by learned A.O. under Section 153C are bad in law and against the statutory provisions. 3.(ii) That without prejudice to the above

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 37(1) of the Act. The appellant also placed reliance on the following judgments: • In Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 • [1996] 218 ITR 427 (MAD.) HIGH COURT OF MADRAS CIT v. Aquapump Industries • [2010] 323 ITR 498 (MP) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CIT v. Khemchand and Motilal Jain Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. which

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 37(1) of the Act. The appellant also placed reliance on the following judgments: • In Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 • [1996] 218 ITR 427 (MAD.) HIGH COURT OF MADRAS CIT v. Aquapump Industries • [2010] 323 ITR 498 (MP) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CIT v. Khemchand and Motilal Jain Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. which

M/S. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the above addition. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 52.1 It was contended by the learned AR that assessee has obtained unsecured loan from four parties. During the course of the hearing assessee filed all documents in respect of each of these parties. During

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD., GURGAON

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the above addition. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 52.1 It was contended by the learned AR that assessee has obtained unsecured loan from four parties. During the course of the hearing assessee filed all documents in respect of each of these parties. During

M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

124 of the order, the Hon’ble High Court has distinguished between the functional profile of a limited risk distributor and a full risk distributor. The Hon’ble High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt Ltd (supra) has further held that no transfer pricing adjustment in respect of AMP expense can be made where

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

3 where the complete details are provided for. Hence he submitted that appellant had worked out the provision on a scientific basis, which is clearly borne out Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 55 of 484 from the contemporaneous

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said