IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI C.M. GARG : JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 671/Del/2011
Asstt. Yr: 2001-02
GE Energy Parts Inc. Vs. Addl. Director of Income-tax,
AIFACS Building, 1, Rafi Marg, Circle 1(2), International
New Delhi-110001. Taxation, New Delhi.
PAN: AACCG 2798 N
Department by : Shri Sanjeev Sharma CIT(DR) &
Shri Vivek Kumar CIT(DR)
Assessee by : Shri S. Ganesh Sr. Counsel along with
Ms. Anuradha Dutt Adv.; S/Shri Rashi Dhir,
Sachit Jolly, Rahul Sateeja adv. &
Ms. Shwetha Bidhuri &
Ms.Roohina Dua Advocates
Interim order on application dated 19-2-2014 filed by the department under
Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidence:
Before we proceed to consider the admissibility of this additional
evidence filed by the department, we may point out the proceedings which
took place in this lead appeal of GE group of cases on various dates. Hearing
of the appeal commenced on 28-1-2014 and continued on 29-1-2014 and 18-
2-2014. Thereafter on 19-2-2014 the revenue sought permission to file the
following documents as additional evidence:
S.
No.
Vol. of
Paper
book
Particulars Page no.
1. Vol. III Linkedin Profiles of Employees 1 to 94
2. Vol. IV Whistleblower’s Writ petition in Hon’ble Delhi High
Court
1 to 177
2. On 20-2-2014 the asses
DELHI BENCH “ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI C.M. GARG : JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 671/Del/2011
Asstt. Yr: 2001-02
GE Energy Parts Inc. Vs. Addl. Director of Income-tax,
AIFACS Building, 1, Rafi Marg, Circle 1(2), International
New Delhi-110001. Taxation, New Delhi.
PAN: AACCG 2798 N
Department by : Shri Sanjeev Sharma CIT(DR) &
Shri Vivek Kumar CIT(DR)
Assessee by : Shri S. Ganesh Sr. Counsel along with
Ms. Anuradha Dutt Adv.; S/Shri Rashi Dhir,
Sachit Jolly, Rahul Sateeja adv. &
Ms. Shwetha Bidhuri &
Ms.Roohina Dua Advocates
Interim order on application dated 19-2-2014 filed by the department under
Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidence:
Before we proceed to consider the admissibility of this additional
evidence filed by the department, we may point out the proceedings which
took place in this lead appeal of GE group of cases on various dates. Hearing
of the appeal commenced on 28-1-2014 and continued on 29-1-2014 and 18-
2-2014. Thereafter on 19-2-2014 the revenue sought permission to file the
following documents as additional evidence:
S.
No.
Vol. of
Paper
book
Particulars Page no.
1. Vol. III Linkedin Profiles of Employees 1 to 94
2. Vol. IV Whistleblower’s Writ petition in Hon’ble Delhi High
Court
1 to 177
2. On 20-2-2014 the asses