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

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

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

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

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

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

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

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

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

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

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

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

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

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

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

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

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

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

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

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

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

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

SANJAY SAWHNEY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

254(1) of the Act, pass such orders as it thinks fit; nonetheless, the decision must be in respect of the subject matter of the dispute. Indisputably, the Tribunal can examine all questions which relate to the subject matter of an appeal but, once an issue has attained finality and is not a subject matter of the dispute before

ACIT CC-18 vs. NEENA HARDEEP SINGH,

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Mrs. Neena Hardeep Singh Central Circle-18, L-5, Hauz Khas Enclave, Room No. 327, 3Rd Floor New Delhi Ara Centre, E-2, Pan : Aarps4684B Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi

254/- ITA No. 1421/Del/2008 & C.O. No. 26/Del/09 Neena Hardeep Singh 6 8. DEPB income as declared by the assessee. 4,92,174/- 9. Interest on FDRs, as declared by the assessee. 2,16,758/- Gross total Income : 3,36,88,155/- Less: Deduction u/s 80-L 262/- Total Taxable Income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

254 (SC)  Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs CIT: 314 ITR 62 (SC)  Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.: 37 ITR 1 (SC)  Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC)  United Commercial Bank vs. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC)  Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC)  Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

254 (SC)  Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs CIT: 314 ITR 62 (SC)  Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.: 37 ITR 1 (SC)  Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC)  United Commercial Bank vs. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC)  Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC)  Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

bogus purchases. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A(3) of the Act when the assessee had not taken any ground in this respect. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

bogus purchases. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A(3) of the Act when the assessee had not taken any ground in this respect. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

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

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

purchases have already been allowed which proves that the supplier is regular in filing its GST returns. Copy of GST-R 2A showing the same has also been filed by the appellant. (ii) M R Gulmi - It has been submitted that the AO has taken incorrect purchase amount of Rs.46,97,31,180/- as against actual purchase of Rs.40