JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Section 68 of the Act where money was not sourced from the assessee. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on paragraph 3(ix) of the deviation report. (viii) The deviation report categorically rejected the assessee’s books of accounts while considering the issue regarding bogus purchases. In this context, the deviation report also emphasized the fact that stock

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Section 68 of the Act where money was not sourced from the assessee. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on paragraph 3(ix) of the deviation report. (viii) The deviation report categorically rejected the assessee’s books of accounts while considering the issue regarding bogus purchases. In this context, the deviation report also emphasized the fact that stock

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

bogus accommodation entry for purchase of material from the accommodation entry providers when the statements are also available on record, these are the incriminating materials. He therefore submitted that the learned CIT – A erred in holding that there are no incriminating documents for these assessment years. He further submitted that even assessee admits that there are incriminating material and their

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

bogus accommodation entry for purchase of material from the accommodation entry providers when the statements are also available on record, these are the incriminating materials. He therefore submitted that the learned CIT – A erred in holding that there are no incriminating documents for these assessment years. He further submitted that even assessee admits that there are incriminating material and their

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

bogus accommodation entry for purchase of material from the accommodation entry providers when the statements are also available on record, these are the incriminating materials. He therefore submitted that the learned CIT – A erred in holding that there are no incriminating documents for these assessment years. He further submitted that even assessee admits that there are incriminating material and their

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

bogus accommodation entry for purchase of material from the accommodation entry providers when the statements are also available on record, these are the incriminating materials. He therefore submitted that the learned CIT – A erred in holding that there are no incriminating documents for these assessment years. He further submitted that even assessee admits that there are incriminating material and their

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

bogus accommodation entry for purchase of material from the accommodation entry providers when the statements are also available on record, these are the incriminating materials. He therefore submitted that the learned CIT – A erred in holding that there are no incriminating documents for these assessment years. He further submitted that even assessee admits that there are incriminating material and their

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

purchase figures or the fact of cash\nsales having been made. It was accordingly held that the\naddition of Rs.86 lakhs was not justified.\nXXX\n12. It was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel\nfor the Revenue, that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the\nevidentiary value of the statement on oath recorded by the\nAssessee under Section

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

purchase figures or the fact of cash\nsales having been made. It was accordingly held that the\naddition of Rs.86 lakhs was not justified.\nXXX\n12. It was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel\nfor the Revenue, that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the\nevidentiary value of the statement on oath recorded by the\nAssessee under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

purchase figures or the fact of cash\nsales having been made. It was accordingly held that the\naddition of Rs.86 lakhs was not justified.\nXXX\n12. It was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel\nfor the Revenue, that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the\nevidentiary value of the statement on oath recorded by the\nAssessee under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

purchase figures or the fact of cash\nsales having been made. It was accordingly held that the\naddition of Rs.86 lakhs was not justified.\nXXX\n12. It was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel\nfor the Revenue, that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the\nevidentiary value of the statement on oath recorded by the\nAssessee under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

purchase figures or the fact of cash\nsales having been made. It was accordingly held that the\naddition of Rs.86 lakhs was not justified.\nXXX\n12. It was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel\nfor the Revenue, that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the\nevidentiary value of the statement on oath recorded by the\nAssessee under Section

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

purchase figures or the fact of cash\nsales having been made. It was accordingly held that the\naddition of Rs.86 lakhs was not justified.\nXXX\n12. It was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel\nfor the Revenue, that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the\nevidentiary value of the statement on oath recorded by the\nAssessee under Section

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

purchase figures or the fact of cash\nsales having been made. It was accordingly held that the\naddition of Rs.86 lakhs was not justified.\nXXX\n12. It was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel\nfor the Revenue, that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the\nevidentiary value of the statement on oath recorded by the\nAssessee under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

purchase figures or the fact of cash\nsales having been made. It was accordingly held that the\naddition of Rs.86 lakhs was not justified.\nXXX\n12. It was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel\nfor the Revenue, that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the\nevidentiary value of the statement on oath recorded by the\nAssessee under Section

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

purchase figures or the fact of cash\nsales having been made. It was accordingly held that the\naddition of Rs.86 lakhs was not justified.\nXXX\n12. It was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel\nfor the Revenue, that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the\nevidentiary value of the statement on oath recorded by the\nAssessee under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

purchase figures or the fact of cash\nsales having been made. It was accordingly held that the\naddition of Rs.86 lakhs was not justified.\nXXX\n12. It was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel\nfor the Revenue, that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the\nevidentiary value of the statement on oath recorded by the\nAssessee under Section

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

purchase figures or the fact of cash\nsales having been made. It was accordingly held that the\naddition of Rs.86 lakhs was not justified.\nXXX\n12. It was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel\nfor the Revenue, that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the\nevidentiary value of the statement on oath recorded by the\nAssessee under Section