AMARJIT MOTOR FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the additions were made on surmises and presumptions without concrete evidence or material found during the search of the assessee. The company's audited accounts showed regular business income, contradicting the shell company theory.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a finance company, was subjected to a search and seizure action. The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded the company was a shell entity providing accommodation entries based on information from a search of a related group, despite no incriminating material being found from the assessee's premises. The AO made additions for alleged commission on these entries.
What were the issues?
Whether additions for alleged commission on accommodation entries can be made without incriminating material found during the search of the assessee, and whether the assessee is a shell company based on external information.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- CIT v. Kabul Chawla3,235 citing380 ITR 573 · 2016 · HC · Read judgment
- Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia1,226 citing395 ITR 526 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR
PER BENCH:
The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against the common order dated 27.09.2019 passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)-XXXI, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17; and separate order for the assessment year 2017-18 of even date which is passed under section 143(3). Since common issues are involved in all the appeals arising out of identical set of facts and same reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, same were heard
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.
More judgments on Section 153A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Ig3 Infra Limited, KanchipuramITA 2578/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Ig3 Infra Limited, OggiamthoraipakkaITA 2577/CHNY/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Shanmugham Thiagarajan, ChennaiITA 2576/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026