ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

394 ITR 569High Court2017#278 most cited

What is ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT authority for?

For initiating proceedings under Section 153C, seized documents must be incriminating and specifically relate to the assessment years for which assessments are reopened. A document relevant only for one year cannot be used to reopen other assessment years without being incriminating for those years.

282

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. · Section 153C · Section 132 · incriminating document · satisfaction note · search assessment · reopening assessment · seized material · jurisdiction 153C · assessment years

Also reported as

81 Taxmann.com 2602017 SCC OnLine DEL 8081

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 148Section 147Section 151Section 149

Issues it is cited on

section 153atosection 153b(1)(a)abatement of assessmentsection 153c proceedingssection 113section 153b(1)section 153c(1)section 158bdblock periodsatisfaction notedocuments seizedsection 132(1)

Judgments citing ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

Jagjit Singh, Punjab vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1097/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satish Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…criminating material has been unearthed pertaining to assessee having reflection on the income of the assessee and relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. 380 ITR 61 (Delhi), ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. vs. ACIT 394 ITR 569 (Delhi) & PCIT vs. Sarwar Agency (P) Ltd. 397 ITR 400 (Delhi). 8. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue in order to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee filed written submissions which are extracted for ready perusal as under :- 5 ITA Nos.1095 to 1098/Del./2015 “2. In this case, search was conducted in the…

Jagjit Singh, Punjab vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1098/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satish Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…criminating material has been unearthed pertaining to assessee having reflection on the income of the assessee and relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. 380 ITR 61 (Delhi), ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. vs. ACIT 394 ITR 569 (Delhi) & PCIT vs. Sarwar Agency (P) Ltd. 397 ITR 400 (Delhi). 8. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue in order to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee filed written submissions which are extracted for ready perusal as under :- 5 ITA Nos.1095 to 1098/Del./2015 “2. In this case, search was conducted in the…

Jagjit Singh, Punjab vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1096/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satish Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…criminating material has been unearthed pertaining to assessee having reflection on the income of the assessee and relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. 380 ITR 61 (Delhi), ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. vs. ACIT 394 ITR 569 (Delhi) & PCIT vs. Sarwar Agency (P) Ltd. 397 ITR 400 (Delhi). 8. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue in order to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee filed written submissions which are extracted for ready perusal as under :- 5 ITA Nos.1095 to 1098/Del./2015 “2. In this case, search was conducted in the…

Jagjit Singh, Punjab vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1095/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satish Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…criminating material has been unearthed pertaining to assessee having reflection on the income of the assessee and relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. 380 ITR 61 (Delhi), ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. vs. ACIT 394 ITR 569 (Delhi) & PCIT vs. Sarwar Agency (P) Ltd. 397 ITR 400 (Delhi). 8. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue in order to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee filed written submissions which are extracted for ready perusal as under :- 5 ITA Nos.1095 to 1098/Del./2015 “2. In this case, search was conducted in the…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Guntur vs. Alla Venkata Nagarjuna Reddy, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee in ground No

ITA 530/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.530/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Alla Venkata Nagarjuna Reddy Income Tax D.No.4-5-8/12 Central Circle-2 First Lane, Navabharath Nagar Guntur Ring Road Guntur [Pan : Ajcpa 7732L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.6/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.530/Viz/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15) Sri Alla Venkata Nagarjuna Reddy Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of D.No.4-5-8/12 Income Tax First Lane, Navabharath Nagar Central Circle-2 Ring Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Ajcpa 7732L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…me Tax-III, Pune v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) settles the issue and holds this to be an essential requirement. The decisions of this Court in CIT-7 v. RRJ Securities (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del)and ARN Infrastructure India Limited v. ACIT [2017] 394 ITR 569 (Delhi) also hold that in order to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153 C of the Act the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened. Since the satisfaction note forms the basis for initiating the proceedings under Section 153 C of the Act, it is futile…

Smt Sadhna Vohra, Bhopal vs. ITO 1(3), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 735/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 131Section 132Section 153CSection 69

…be reopened, the decision of the Supreme Court in Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) settles the issue and holds this to be an essential requirement. The decisions of this Court in RRJ Securities and ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT (2017) 394 ITR 569/8 taxmann.com 260 (Delhi) also hold that in order to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the Assessment years whose assessments are sought to be reopened. Since the satisfaction note forms the basis for initiating the proceedings under Section 1…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Peccadily Estate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 4029/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () - 2010-11 - 2009-10 - 2011-12

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…n this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Arpit Land Pvt Ltd (2017) 393 ITR 276 (Bom). He also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ARN Infrastructure India Ltd vs ACIT (2017) 394 ITR 569 (Del). 13. Insofar as addition made towards estimation of n-money, the Ld.AR submitted that there is no iota of evidence with the AO to indicate that the assessee is indulging in collection of on-money over and above whatever stated in registered documents towards sale of flats. Though, the AO has referred to page 114 of Annexure A-1, but on p…

Paresh K. Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 7374/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am

Section 132Section 153C

…ing over of assets/documents to the AO of the Assessee." 9. The said decision in RRJ Securities (supra) has been followed by this Court subsequently in ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circule-28, New Delhi [2017] 394 ITR 569 (Del.). 10. Mr. Salil Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Assessee, has drawn the attention of the Court to the recent amendment made in Section 153 C of the Act by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 1st April 2017. This amendment in effect states that the block period for the searched person as well as the 'other person' would be the same six…

Jivraj P. Surani, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4541/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Delhi), Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi), CIT v. M/s Arpit Land P. Ltd. (ITA No. 83 of 2014) & CIT v. M/s Ambit Realty Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 150 of 2014) (Bombay), ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. ACIT 394 ITR 569 (Delhi), CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society 378 ITR 84 (Bombay) and CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (Civil Appeal No. 11080 of 2017) (SC). Also in support of his contentions that the assessment made by the AO is barred by limitation, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision in CIT v. BJN Hotels Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 110 (Karn), ord…

Suresh V. Kukadiya, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4523/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Delhi), Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi), CIT v. M/s Arpit Land P. Ltd. (ITA No. 83 of 2014) & CIT v. M/s Ambit Realty Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 150 of 2014) (Bombay), ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. ACIT 394 ITR 569 (Delhi), CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society 378 ITR 84 (Bombay) and CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (Civil Appeal No. 11080 of 2017) (SC). Also in support of his contentions that the assessment made by the AO is barred by limitation, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision in CIT v. BJN Hotels Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 110 (Karn), ord…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Anush Finlease and Construction Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is deemed to be dismissed

ITA 6576/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 153C

…e Tax-III, Pune v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) settles the issue and holds this to be an essential requirement. The decisions of this Court in CIT-7 v. RRJ Securities (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del) and ARN Infrastructure India Limited v. ACIT [2017] 394 ITR 569 (Del) also hold that in order to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153 C of the Act the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened. Since the satisfaction note forms the basis for initiating the proceedings under Section 153 C of the Act, it is futile fo…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Urmila Chandulal Patel, New Delhi

Accordingly all the appeals of the revenue with respect to all these assesses are dismissed

ITA 1459/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyacit, Vs. Rohan Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Asjpp8428L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Himanshu Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Actpp8270C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Praduman Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Ajhpp2206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Krish Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aqvpp2875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Urmila Chandulal Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aeipp1395R

For Appellant: Shri Raj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…said to be incriminating - Whether since, both essential requirements for assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C were not met, issuance of notice was unjustified - Held, yes [Paras 30 & 32] [In favour of assessee] ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. Vs. ACIT 394 ITR 569 (Delhi) ―Para - 13. As regards the seized documents, what is mentioned in the Satisfaction Note are two documents: the ledger account maintained by the Petitioner running into 3 pages showing the commission payments made by the Petitioner to RGEPL and the letter dated 27th January, 2010 written by the Petitioner to RGEPL. As far as the latter doc…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Krish Patel, New Delhi

Accordingly all the appeals of the revenue with respect to all these assesses are dismissed

ITA 1458/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyacit, Vs. Rohan Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Asjpp8428L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Himanshu Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Actpp8270C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Praduman Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Ajhpp2206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Krish Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aqvpp2875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Urmila Chandulal Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aeipp1395R

For Appellant: Shri Raj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…said to be incriminating - Whether since, both essential requirements for assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C were not met, issuance of notice was unjustified - Held, yes [Paras 30 & 32] [In favour of assessee] ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. Vs. ACIT 394 ITR 569 (Delhi) ―Para - 13. As regards the seized documents, what is mentioned in the Satisfaction Note are two documents: the ledger account maintained by the Petitioner running into 3 pages showing the commission payments made by the Petitioner to RGEPL and the letter dated 27th January, 2010 written by the Petitioner to RGEPL. As far as the latter doc…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Praduman Patel, New Delhi

Accordingly all the appeals of the revenue with respect to all these assesses are dismissed

ITA 1457/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyacit, Vs. Rohan Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Asjpp8428L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Himanshu Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Actpp8270C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Praduman Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Ajhpp2206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Krish Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aqvpp2875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Urmila Chandulal Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aeipp1395R

For Appellant: Shri Raj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…said to be incriminating - Whether since, both essential requirements for assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C were not met, issuance of notice was unjustified - Held, yes [Paras 30 & 32] [In favour of assessee] ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. Vs. ACIT 394 ITR 569 (Delhi) ―Para - 13. As regards the seized documents, what is mentioned in the Satisfaction Note are two documents: the ledger account maintained by the Petitioner running into 3 pages showing the commission payments made by the Petitioner to RGEPL and the letter dated 27th January, 2010 written by the Petitioner to RGEPL. As far as the latter doc…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Himanshu Patel, New Delhi

Accordingly all the appeals of the revenue with respect to all these assesses are dismissed

ITA 1456/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyacit, Vs. Rohan Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Asjpp8428L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Himanshu Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Actpp8270C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Praduman Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Ajhpp2206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Krish Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aqvpp2875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Urmila Chandulal Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aeipp1395R

For Appellant: Shri Raj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…said to be incriminating - Whether since, both essential requirements for assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C were not met, issuance of notice was unjustified - Held, yes [Paras 30 & 32] [In favour of assessee] ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. Vs. ACIT 394 ITR 569 (Delhi) ―Para - 13. As regards the seized documents, what is mentioned in the Satisfaction Note are two documents: the ledger account maintained by the Petitioner running into 3 pages showing the commission payments made by the Petitioner to RGEPL and the letter dated 27th January, 2010 written by the Petitioner to RGEPL. As far as the latter doc…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Rohan Patel, New Delhi

Accordingly all the appeals of the revenue with respect to all these assesses are dismissed

ITA 1455/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyacit, Vs. Rohan Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Asjpp8428L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Himanshu Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Actpp8270C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Praduman Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Ajhpp2206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Krish Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aqvpp2875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Urmila Chandulal Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aeipp1395R

For Appellant: Shri Raj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…said to be incriminating - Whether since, both essential requirements for assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C were not met, issuance of notice was unjustified - Held, yes [Paras 30 & 32] [In favour of assessee] ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. Vs. ACIT 394 ITR 569 (Delhi) ―Para - 13. As regards the seized documents, what is mentioned in the Satisfaction Note are two documents: the ledger account maintained by the Petitioner running into 3 pages showing the commission payments made by the Petitioner to RGEPL and the letter dated 27th January, 2010 written by the Petitioner to RGEPL. As far as the latter doc…

M/S. Simbhaoli Sugars Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5572/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…hed person. At this stage, we may point out that nowhere the Assessing Officer has mentioned that neither Shri R.K. Miglani nor the UPDA have disclaimed the seized documents. 23. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ARN Infrastructure India Limited 394 ITR 569 had the occasion to consider the following facts: “A search was conducted in the case of a company E and when the panchnama for the search was prepared, the name of the company R was also added to it. During the course of search, a letter written by the assessee to the company R was found, which contained the details of commission payments by th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Simbhaoli Sugars, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3001/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…hed person. At this stage, we may point out that nowhere the Assessing Officer has mentioned that neither Shri R.K. Miglani nor the UPDA have disclaimed the seized documents. 23. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ARN Infrastructure India Limited 394 ITR 569 had the occasion to consider the following facts: “A search was conducted in the case of a company E and when the panchnama for the search was prepared, the name of the company R was also added to it. During the course of search, a letter written by the assessee to the company R was found, which contained the details of commission payments by th…

M/S. U.P. Distillery Association, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3211/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…hed person. At this stage, we may point out that nowhere the Assessing Officer has mentioned that neither Shri R.K. Miglani nor the UPDA have disclaimed the seized documents. 23. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ARN Infrastructure India Limited 394 ITR 569 had the occasion to consider the following facts: “A search was conducted in the case of a company E and when the panchnama for the search was prepared, the name of the company R was also added to it. During the course of search, a letter written by the assessee to the company R was found, which contained the details of commission payments by th…

M/S. U.P. Distillery Association, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3210/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…hed person. At this stage, we may point out that nowhere the Assessing Officer has mentioned that neither Shri R.K. Miglani nor the UPDA have disclaimed the seized documents. 23. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ARN Infrastructure India Limited 394 ITR 569 had the occasion to consider the following facts: “A search was conducted in the case of a company E and when the panchnama for the search was prepared, the name of the company R was also added to it. During the course of search, a letter written by the assessee to the company R was found, which contained the details of commission payments by th…