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

disallowing the assessee’s entire purchases of `8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act thereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation entries going by its authorized persons’ statements recorded in the course of Section 132

KUSUM MITTAL ,HARYANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, GURGAON

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance made and upheld by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be deleted and appeal of the appellant be allowed.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) was conducted on 23/08/2017 in the case of M/s Raj Cotton Group, wherein the assessee case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the demand notice is always consequential to the assessment order and has been served within reasonable period of time. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the demand notice is always consequential to the assessment order and has been served within reasonable period of time. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the demand notice is always consequential to the assessment order and has been served within reasonable period of time. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

132 (Mumbai-Trib) 12. We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the records. We observe that during the AY 2012-13 also the assessee had incurred loss of Rs. 10.22 crores on ECB liability which was disallowed by the Ld. AO. On appeal by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

132 (Mumbai-Trib) 12. We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the records. We observe that during the AY 2012-13 also the assessee had incurred loss of Rs. 10.22 crores on ECB liability which was disallowed by the Ld. AO. On appeal by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

132 (Mumbai-Trib) 12. We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the records. We observe that during the AY 2012-13 also the assessee had incurred loss of Rs. 10.22 crores on ECB liability which was disallowed by the Ld. AO. On appeal by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

132 (Mumbai-Trib) 12. We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the records. We observe that during the AY 2012-13 also the assessee had incurred loss of Rs. 10.22 crores on ECB liability which was disallowed by the Ld. AO. On appeal by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

disallowance directed by the AO under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules was scaled down from the figure of Rs. 1,56,08,262/- to Rs. 91,18,132

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

disallowance directed by the AO under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules was scaled down from the figure of Rs. 1,56,08,262/- to Rs. 91,18,132

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

disallowance directed by the AO under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules was scaled down from the figure of Rs. 1,56,08,262/- to Rs. 91,18,132

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

disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse of Section 132

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

disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse of Section 132

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

disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse of Section 132

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

disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse of Section 132

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

disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse of Section 132

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

disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse of Section 132