PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. NAGESHWAR INVESTMENT LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the principle of law settled in the Pepsico judgment regarding the interpretation of "belongs to" in Section 153C applies regardless of whether the recovered document is in hard copy or hard disk format. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) passed an order relying on a High Court judgment in a case concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue appealed this order, arguing that the ITAT also relied on other ITAT decisions which were subject to pending appeals.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the interpretation of the phrase "belongs to" in Section 153C of the Income Tax Act and its applicability to documents recovered in different formats.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. ACIT249 citing370 ITR 295 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
$-. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 5. + ITA 406/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I Appellant Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate. versus • NAGESH WAR INVESTMENT LTD Respondent WITH 6/ (4 ITA 407/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I Appcllant Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate. versus• NAGESH WAR INVESTMENT LTD Respondent is WITH 'a + ITA 408/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I Appellant Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate. versus ITA Nos. 406, 407,408 & 409 of 2015 . Pa;e 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified
NAGESH WAR INVESTMENT LTD. . Respondent rnI 8. + ITA 409/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I Appellant Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate. versus NAGESH WAR INVESTMENT LTD Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 20.07.2015 CM Nos. 11910/2015, 11911/2015 & 11912/2015 (for exemption) . 1. Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of. ITA Nos. 406/2015, 407/2015, 408/2015 & 409/2015 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') has in the common impugned order dated 28th November 2014 pertaining to Assessment Years ('AYs') 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 relied upon, inter alia, on ITA Nos. 406, 407, 408 & 409 of 2015 Page2of4
the judgment of this Court in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. ACIT [2015] 370 ITR 295 (Delhi). It is stated that the judgment of this Court in Pepsico is pending consideration in a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. However no stay has been granted of the operation of the judgment of this Court. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the ITAT has also relied on the decision of its coordinate Bench in V.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA Nos. 5460-5465/Del/2012) which in turn relied on an earlier order of the ITAT in DSL Properties FyI. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 113 49/Del/20 12). He states that the decision of the ITAT in DSL Properties Pvt. Ltd (supra) is the subject matter of a separate appeal in this Court being ITA No. 585/2013 which is pending consideration. He accordingly prays that these appeals be taken up with ITA No. 585/2013. The Court is of the view that the essential principle of law that has been settled by this Court in Pepsico in regard to the interpretation of the words "belongs to" in Section 153 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would apply on all fours to the facts of the present case irrespective of whether the document recovered (viz., the accounts) is in the form of a hard copy or a hard disk. ITA Nos. 406, 407, 408 & 409 of 2015 Page 3 of 4
t, Consequently, the Court does not find any error in the impugned order of the ITAT which gives rise to a substantial question of law. 6. The appeals are dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J JULY 20, 2015/dn ITA Nos. 406, 407, 408 & 409 of 2015 Page 4 of 4
More judgments on Section 153C
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ajay Singh, Kota vs DCIT, Central Circle, KotaITA 495/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- Korba Steel Castings vs. State Of ChhattisgarhChhattisgarh · 29 Oct 2026