CIT v. M. S. Aggarwal

93 Taxmann.com 247High Court2018#1329 most cited

What is CIT v. M. S. Aggarwal authority for?

A statement made by an assessee during a search operation under Section 132(4) can be treated as credible evidence against the assessee when it is supported by other evidences brought on record by the Assessing Officer. This principle applies particularly for making additions, such as for unexplained money under Section 69A.

86

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. M. S. Aggarwal · Section 132(4) statement · evidentiary value · credible evidence · corroborating evidence · unexplained money · Section 69A · search assessment · search and seizure · Delhi High Court

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. M. S. Aggarwal

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Hal Offshore Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 6956/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2Nd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is One Of The Group Companies Of Mmg Group & Has Business Interest In Several Segments Like Chartering & Leasing Of Vessels To Ongc & Shipping, Etc. In This Case, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act, 1961 Was Carried Out On 28Th March, 2015. During The Course Of Search, Documents & Data Storage Devices, Etc., Belonging To The Assessee Were Found & Seized. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th July, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.12,15,49,580/-. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 20Th May, 2016 Which Was Duly Served On The Assessee. Subsequently, Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Certain Information. The Assessee Complied To The Said Questionnaire By Filing The Requisite Details.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…izure operation, empowers the AO to frame the block assessment:- a) PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), 432 ITR 384 (Del); b) CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Del); c) CIT vs. Harjeev Agarwal, 290 CTR 263 (Del); d) M.S. Aggarwal vs. CIT, 406 ITR 609 (Del); e) Smt. Shivali Mahajan vs. ACIT, ITA No.5585/Del/2015, order dated 19th March, 2019 for AY 2006-07 Delhi ITAT). f) M/s Brahmaputra Finlease (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.3332/Del/2017, order dated 29.12.2017 (Delhi ITAT). 26 22. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no corroborative evidences found, gathered or seized to…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Moon Beverages Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 6955/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs Moon Beverages Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm1635J Co No.06/Del/2019 (Ita No.6955/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Moon Beverages Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Bengali Market, New Delhi New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm1635J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2Nd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. Co No.06/Del/2019 The Assessee Has Filed Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153A

…izure operation, empowers the AO to frame the block assessment:- a) PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), 432 ITR 384 (Del); b) CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Del); c) CIT vs. Harjeev Agarwal, 290 CTR 263 (Del); d) M.S. Aggarwal vs. CIT, 406 ITR 609 (Del); e) Smt. Shivali Mahajan vs. ACIT, ITA No.5585/Del/2015, order dated 19th March, 2019 for AY 2006-07 Delhi ITAT). f) M/s Brahmaputra Finlease (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.3332/Del/2017, order dated 29.12.2017 (Delhi ITAT). 18. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no corroborative evidences found, gathered or seized to sup…