CIT v. Harjeev Agrawal

290 ITR 263High Court#7383 most cited

What is CIT v. Harjeev Agrawal authority for?

Statements recorded at the time of search do not automatically constitute incriminating material found as a result of the search.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Harjeev Agrawal · 290 ITR 263 · search · incriminating material · statement under section 132(4) · retraction of statement

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

closely held companyaccumulated profitssection 153a(1)(b)section 158bcpaper companysection 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)retraction of statementsection 153dstatement under section 132(4)section 40a(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Harjeev Agrawal

Champion Builder Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 462/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.462 & 463/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…come Tax Act. o The reliance based upon the statement of Mukesh Banka was retracted and therefore cannot be relied upon and even otherwise statement recorded itself cannot constitute incriminating material unless proved independently (CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 290 ITR 263 (Del). o Assessee had received loans on which interest was debited and the entire loan was refunded in the subsequent year along with interest and the assessee had fully discharged its onus before the AO and could not do anything further. CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd 159 ITR 78 (SC) - the assessee had given the names of the loan creditors…

M/S. Anand Diagnostic Laboratory, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

Accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 967/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: S/Shri. Sridhar S and Arjun Raj N, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…suggest that there was some manipulation in the accounts of the assessee. A statement on standalone basis cannot be treated as incriminating material as held by various High Courts including Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal reported in 290 ITR 263(Del) and and CIT Vs Best Infrastructure reported in 397 ITR 82(Del). Therefore, respectfully following the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar(Supra), we allow the appeals of the assessee on this ground alone. Since we have already allowed the appeal of the assessee on this legal aspect, we deem it appropriate not to go into…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 435/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…ssessment framed u/s 153A of the Act without any seized material. 3.15 The ld. A.R. for the assessee further relied on the following judgements: a) CIT Vs. S. Jayalakshmi Ammal (390 ITR 189) b) CIT Vs. Sunil Aggrawal (379 ITR 367) c) CIT Vs. Harjeev Aggrawal (290 ITR 263) d) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (2021) (SCC) Online Del 3174 3.16 The ld. A.R. further relied on the order of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company in ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 dated 1.9.2023. 3.17 Hence, the ld. A.R. requested us that the additions may kindly b…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 434/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…ssessment framed u/s 153A of the Act without any seized material. 3.15 The ld. A.R. for the assessee further relied on the following judgements: a) CIT Vs. S. Jayalakshmi Ammal (390 ITR 189) b) CIT Vs. Sunil Aggrawal (379 ITR 367) c) CIT Vs. Harjeev Aggrawal (290 ITR 263) d) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (2021) (SCC) Online Del 3174 3.16 The ld. A.R. further relied on the order of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company in ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 dated 1.9.2023. 3.17 Hence, the ld. A.R. requested us that the additions may kindly b…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…ssessment framed u/s 153A of the Act without any seized material. 3.15 The ld. A.R. for the assessee further relied on the following judgements: a) CIT Vs. S. Jayalakshmi Ammal (390 ITR 189) b) CIT Vs. Sunil Aggrawal (379 ITR 367) c) CIT Vs. Harjeev Aggrawal (290 ITR 263) d) Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (2021) (SCC) Online Del 3174 3.16 The ld. A.R. further relied on the order of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company in ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 dated 1.9.2023. 3.17 Hence, the ld. A.R. requested us that the additions may kindly b…

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Anoop Thatai, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6362/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…. Therefore, the mere fact there may have been documents pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue in…

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6361/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…. Therefore, the mere fact there may have been documents pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue in…

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6360/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…. Therefore, the mere fact there may have been documents pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue in…

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6359/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…. Therefore, the mere fact there may have been documents pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue in…

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6358/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…. Therefore, the mere fact there may have been documents pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue in…

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6357/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…. Therefore, the mere fact there may have been documents pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue in…

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6356/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…. Therefore, the mere fact there may have been documents pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue in…

Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5722/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…. Therefore, the mere fact there may have been documents pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue in…

Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5721/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…. Therefore, the mere fact there may have been documents pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue in…

Anoop Thatai, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5719/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…. Therefore, the mere fact there may have been documents pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue in…

CIT v. Harjeev Agrawal (290 ITR 263) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax