275 (Bombay), CIT v. P.K. Ganeshwar

308 ITR 124High Court2009#10503 most cited

What is 275 (Bombay), CIT v. P.K. Ganeshwar authority for?

A search warrant, which is the basis for proceedings under section 153A, cannot be considered as incriminating material seized during the search itself.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar · section 153A · search warrant · incriminating material · seized material · search and seizure · assessment under section 153A · basis of proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 124Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 69Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 153cofsection 127(2)(a)section 153aofsection 124(3)(a)warrant of authorisationsection 127(2)sanction under section 151section 124(3)section 158bb(1)section 124section 120section 158bb

Judgments citing 275 (Bombay), CIT v. P.K. Ganeshwar

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2472/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

…153A, cannot be considered as incriminating material seized during the search as held in PCIT vs Jaypee Financial Services Ltd [2021] 127 taxmann.com 490 (Delhi), Shankarlal Bhagwati Prasad Jalan [2017] 84 taxmann.com 275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider who was providing the exit accommodation of the LTCGs in t…

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2471/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

…153A, cannot be considered as incriminating material seized during the search as held in PCIT vs Jaypee Financial Services Ltd [2021] 127 taxmann.com 490 (Delhi), Shankarlal Bhagwati Prasad Jalan [2017] 84 taxmann.com 275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider who was providing the exit accommodation of the LTCGs in t…

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2470/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

…153A, cannot be considered as incriminating material seized during the search as held in PCIT vs Jaypee Financial Services Ltd [2021] 127 taxmann.com 490 (Delhi), Shankarlal Bhagwati Prasad Jalan [2017] 84 taxmann.com 275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider who was providing the exit accommodation of the LTCGs in t…

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2469/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

…153A, cannot be considered as incriminating material seized during the search as held in PCIT vs Jaypee Financial Services Ltd [2021] 127 taxmann.com 490 (Delhi), Shankarlal Bhagwati Prasad Jalan [2017] 84 taxmann.com 275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider who was providing the exit accommodation of the LTCGs in t…

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2468/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

…153A, cannot be considered as incriminating material seized during the search as held in PCIT vs Jaypee Financial Services Ltd [2021] 127 taxmann.com 490 (Delhi), Shankarlal Bhagwati Prasad Jalan [2017] 84 taxmann.com 275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider who was providing the exit accommodation of the LTCGs in t…

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2467/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

…153A, cannot be considered as incriminating material seized during the search as held in PCIT vs Jaypee Financial Services Ltd [2021] 127 taxmann.com 490 (Delhi), Shankarlal Bhagwati Prasad Jalan [2017] 84 taxmann.com 275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider who was providing the exit accommodation of the LTCGs in t…

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6405/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

…153A, cannot be considered as incriminating material seized during the search as held in PCIT vs Jaypee Financial Services Ltd [2021] 127 taxmann.com 490 (Delhi), Shankarlal Bhagwati Prasad Jalan [2017] 84 taxmann.com 275 (Bombay), CIT v P.K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad.), ACIT vs Ambika International, New Delhi on 13 September, 2023- ITA No. 5071/DEL/2017, BS Associates vs DCIT 2019-TIOL-2578- ITAT-INDORE. 30. The ld. Counsel also stated that in the entire assessment order, the AO has not mentioned statement of any person except some exit provider who was providing the exit accommodation of the LTCGs in t…

Jay Ketan Parikh, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1955/MUM/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

…n, cannot be construed as incriminating material found during the course of search for making addition. In defense of his arguments, the ld M/s. Jay Ketan Parikh & ors AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. PK Ganeshwar (308 ITR 124). 11. The ld AR submits that the letter from the HSBC bank was furnished by the assessee on its own and not pursuant to any inquiry by the search team. Further, this letter corroborates and confirms the stand of the assessee and hence is not be said to be incriminating, certainly not the material based on which addition could be made. The ld AR…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - I vs. M/s. Bhooratnam Construction Co. (P) Ltd

ITTA/222/2012HC Telangana23 Nov 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/222/2011HC Telangana27 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

275 (Bombay), CIT v. P.K. Ganeshwar (308 ITR 124) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax