2014 (5) TMI 1225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... BAKHRU For the Appellant : Sh. Abhishek Singh Baghel with Sh. Arjun Harkauli, Advocates, for the Revenue (in Item Nos. 1 to 3). For the Respondent : None ORDER C.M. APPL. 8108/2014 (for condonation of delay) IN ITA 207/2014 C.M. APPL. 8110/2014 (for condonation of delay) IN ITA 208/2014 C.M. APPL. 8112/2014 (for condonation of delay) IN ITA 209/2014 For the reasons mentioned in the appl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... enue by two decisions, i.e. CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. and Anr. 330 ITR 440 (Del) and DIT v. Brahmaputra Capital Finance Ltd. 335 ITR 182. As far as the second aspect goes, we notice that the Revenue had succeeded before the ITAT in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT 320 ITR 577 (SC). The Revenue is not in appeal in respect of that question. Follo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X