9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Counsel with Ms Madhavi Shukla and Mr Ashvini Kumar, Standing Counsel. ORDER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL) CM APPL.39259/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. ITA 422/2023 2. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 3. The appellant/assessee is aggrieved on account of the fact that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"] vide order dated 10.05.2023 has sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forfeited was Rs. 6,95,80,595/-. Rs. 1,59,36,508/-, which was also added to the income of the respondent/assessee, was written off by SAL in FY 2014-15. (v) Fifth, the communication with regard to the forfeiture of the security deposit was served on the petitioner via a letter dated 22.02.2015. The inspection reports which are dated 24.03.2010 and 08.04.2010 were produced, according to Mr Manibh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d into an arrangement with SAL, what has persuaded us to uphold the impugned order is that no material that was produced by the appellant/assessee to establish the transaction in issue was genuine. 7. As noted by the authorities below; firstly, the appellant/assessee failed to produce the original agreement. 7.1. Secondly, the amount which was forfeited towards security deposit was an odd amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the security deposit which was forfeited by SAL was concerned, it had paid service tax on the said amount. On being queried, Mr Jain says that the relevant document was produced, for the first time, before the Tribunal. 9.1 In our view, this cannot impact the conclusion reached by the Tribunal, as what was required to be ascertained was whether the agreement dated 23.01.2010 represented a gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
