Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Delhi v. M/S Advantage Fashion Pvt. Ltd

$~78 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 518/2024 & CM APPL. 60214/2024 (delay) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. versus M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R% 14.10.2024 CM APPL. 60213/2024 (Exemption) 1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.The application stands disposed of. ITA 518/2024 3.The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act), impugning an order dated 30.11.2023, passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ITAT) in a batch of appeals and cross-appeals preferred by the Revenue and the Assessee, for the assessment years (hereafter AY) 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The present appeal relates to the Revenue’s appeal being ITA No. 4.The present appeal relates to the Revenue’s appeal being ITA No. 796/Del/2017 for the AY 2008-09, which was rejected by the learned ITAT, in terms of the common order, impugned in the present appeal. The Revenue has projected the following questions, for consideration of this Court: “A. Whether the Ld. ITAT was correct in deleting the additions of Rs.6,99,36,732/- made on account of interest income camouflaged as sale/purchase by the assessee ignoring the documents seized and nature of agreement? B. Whether the Ld. ITAT was correct in deleting the additions of Rs.6,99,36,732/- made on account of interest income camouflaged as sale/purchase by the assessee ignoring the fact that no sale / purchase agreement of property contains clauses pertaining to corporate guarantee, personal guarantee, post-dated cheques etc? C. Whether the Ld. ITAT was correct in deleting the additions of Rs.6,99,36,732/- made on account of interest income camouflaged as sale/purchase by the assessee ignoring the statement of Mr. Naveen Choudhary, CFO who admitted that the amount advanced to M/s Vatika Group is actually loan amount?” 5.Similar questions are also projected by the Revenue in connected appeals arising from the common impugned order. This Court had, in ITA 517/2024, considered the controversy involved in the present case and had found that no substantial question of law arises. The decision rendered in ITA 517/2024 would also cover the controversy covered in the present appeal. 6.The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 14, 2024/at SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, JClick here to check corrigendum, if any