DHARAMVIR KHOSLA ,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

253/-\nand respectively @ 7.5% on the value of asset as of Rs. 39,41,750/-, Rs.\n56,51,844/- and Rs. 60,70,038/- respectively. Thus, total depreciation for 3\nvehicles was taken at Rs. 11,74,772/- @ 7.5%. However, while computing\nintimation the assessing officer ignored page no. 44 at S. No. 11 where\ndepreciation on half rate

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, DELHI

253 (2), applying the\nprinciple of 'taylor v. taylor' Ch.D (431), that 'where a power is given to do a certain\nthing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that\nother methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, applied to Judicial\nOfficers making a record under Section 164.'. Thus, as held

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

253 (2), applying the\nprinciple of 'taylor v. taylor' Ch.D (431), that 'where a power is given to do a certain\nthing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that\nother methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, applied to Judicial\nOfficers making a record under Section 164.'. Thus, as held

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

Section 119 of the Act as noticed above, we find that while Section\n119(1) of the Act, restrains the Board from issuing any instructions to subordinate\nauthorities, which may lay down instructions of such a nature requiring the Income\nTax Authorities to make particular assessment in a particular manner or to\ninterfere with the discretion of the Joint Commissioner

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Section 119 of the Act. Vide Para 9 of Chapter 3 of Volume-II\n(Technical), a clear procedure is devised i.e., how an approval is to be granted for draft\nassessment for passing of assessment order in search cases. According to the Manual,\nthe Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such approval well in\ntime along

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

Section 119 of the Act as noticed above, we find that while Section\n119(1) of the Act, restrains the Board from issuing any instructions to subordinate\nauthorities, which may lay down instructions of such a nature requiring the Income\nTax Authorities to make particular assessment in a particular manner or to\ninterfere with the discretion of the Joint Commissioner

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

Section 119 of the Act. Vide Para 9 of Chapter 3 of Volume-II\n(Technical), a clear procedure is devised i.e., how an approval is to be granted for draft\nassessment for passing of assessment order in search cases. According to the Manual,\nthe Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such approval well in\ntime along

LENIENT CONSULTANTS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed\nas indicated above

253 (Gau.) has been noted to record that grant of approval\nmeans due application of mind on the subject matter approved\nwhich satisfies all the legal and procedural requirements. There is\nan exhaustive discussion on the requirement of prior approval\nunder Section 153D of the Act and it was noted that the\nrequirement of approval cannot be treated as mere

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

253/-\nand respectively @ 7.5% on the value of asset as of Rs. 39,41,750/-, Rs.\n56,51,844/- and Rs. 60,70,038/- respectively. Thus, total depreciation for 3\nvehicles was taken at Rs. 11,74,772/- @ 7.5%. However, while computing\nintimation the assessing officer ignored page no. 44 at S. No. 11 where\ndepreciation on half rate

WIN MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

253 or in clause (c)\nof sub-section (2) of section 260A.\n(4) Where the order of 22[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the\nCommissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as the\ncase may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity with the\nfinal decision on the question

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell

CLAAS AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

253 or in clause (c)\nof sub-section (2) of section 260A.\n(4) Where the order of 22[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the\nCommissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as the\ncase may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity with the\nfinal decision on the question

BAXTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

253 or in clause\n(c) of sub-section (2) of section 260A.\n(4) Where the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the\nCommissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as\nthe case may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity\nwith the final decision on the question

VIVO MOBILE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

253 or in clause\n(c) of sub-section (2) of section 260A.\n(4) Where the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or]\nthe\nCommissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as\nthe case may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity\nwith the final decision on the question

EVERSUB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HARYANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

253 or in clause\n(c) of sub-section (2) of section 260A.\n(4) Where the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the\nCommissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as\nthe case may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity\nwith the final decision on the question

MSD PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

253 or in clause\n(c) of sub-section (2) of section 260A.\n(4) Where the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the\nCommissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as\nthe case may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity\nwith the final decision on the question

SANJAY SAWHNEY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

1)(ii) of the Act. In response thereto, the appellant filed the original return of income declaring total income of Rs.8,90,760/- and submitted that the same be treated as a return in compliance to notice under Section 153C of the Act. The assessment proceedings culminated in framing of an assessment order dated 28.12.2010 whereby the return of income