DCIT, MUMBAI vs. AACHMAN VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as the shares were received prior to the applicability of Section 56(2)(viia) and no incriminating material was found during the search to support the addition. The Tribunal relied on its own coordinate bench's decision on identical facts.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition made under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Income Tax Act. The addition was related to the purchase of shares, and the CIT(A) allowed the appeal based on additional evidence and the finding that the shares were received before the relevant date.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence and deleting the addition made under Section 56(2)(viia) without incriminating material found during search.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 56(2)(viia),Section 153A,Section 132(4),Section 153C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.2,379 citing2023 SCC OnLine SC 481 · 2023
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal583 citing2016 SCC OnLine DEL 1512 · 2016 · Read judgment
- CIT (Central) v. Kabul Chawla186 citing2015 SCC OnLine DEL 11555 · 2015 · Read judgment
- PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain180 citing432 ITR 384 · 2021 · HC · Read judgment
- 2008 SCC OnLine GUJ 4366 citing2008 SCC OnLine GUJ 436 · 2008
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: I.T.A. No. 385/Mum/2025 & C.O. No. 55/Mum/2025 are appeal by the revenue and cross-objections by the assessee preferred against the very same order of the ld. CIT(A) - 50, Mumbai, dated 25/11/2024 pertaining to AY 2011-12. 2. The grievance of the rev
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs Aachman Vanijya Private Limited, KolkataMumbai21 Mar 2025Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Statements recorded during a search, on their own, without corroborating evidence found during the...
- DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs Aachman Vanijya Private Limited, KolkataMumbai21 Mar 2025Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Statements recorded during a search, without corroborating evidence found during the search, do no...
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income… vs M/S N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd…Jaipur24 Aug 2022Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A are not sustainable without incriminating material found during the search. Statements from third parties without locus standi and without corresponding admission ...
- Sachin Pareek, Surat vs DCIT (Centrel) Circle-4, SuratSurat29 Dec 2021Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notices issued under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment orders. It found sufficient incriminating material, including electronic evidence and admissions, to confirm the add...
- M/S. Kesar Marble and Granites Ltd… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…Bangalore3 Jul 2024Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were not time-barred as they were passed and dispatched within the stipulated period. It also ruled that the search and subsequent proceedings under Section 153C were legally ...
More judgments on Section 56(2)(viia)
- DCIT CC 13, Jhandewalan vs Electricals and Electronics India Limited…ITA 7999/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- M/S Energy Development Company Limited… vs DCIT /ACIT Central Circle-2, Gurgaon…ITA 2110/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- M/S Energy Development Company Limited… vs DCIT /ACIT Central Circle-2, Gurgaon…ITA 2109/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- M/S Energy Development Company Limited… vs DCIT /ACIT Central Circle-2, Gurgaon…ITA 2108/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S Energy Development Company Limited… vs DCIT /ACIT Central Circle-2, Gurgaon…ITA 2107/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
