2023 (8) TMI 682

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing 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,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts part to the supply the product. (iv) Fourth, the amount which was 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 re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rvation to the effect that, since better technology was available, they ought not to have entered 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 ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as SAL. 9. It may be also relevant to note that, in support of his case, Mr Jain has argued that insofar 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....