CIT v. Raj Pal Bhatia

333 ITR 315High Court2011#2168 most cited

What is CIT v. Raj Pal Bhatia authority for?

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search operation is not considered "books of account," "documents," or "assets found or seized" for the purpose of initiating search assessments under Chapter XIVB (e.g., Section 158BD or 153C). Such a statement is created during the search and cannot solely form the basis for assessment without other incriminating material found.

54

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Raj Pal Bhatia · Section 132(4) statement · Section 153C assessment · Section 158BD block assessment · search and seizure · incriminating material found · statement not document · sole basis for assessment · Chapter XIVB · books of account found

Also reported as

10 Taxmann.com 191202 Taxmann 140

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 69CSection 234ASection 37(1)Section 44ADSection 69B

Issues it is cited on

cash found during searchsection 115bbe(1)section 158basection 142asection 127(2)section 50c(1)section 140section 2(45)section 113dumb documentssection 292csection 132(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Raj Pal Bhatia

NARESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3144/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumararti Garg, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A – 19, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Akupg4398A) Naresh Arora, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A-061, 6Th Floor, Spaze Privy, Delhi. Sector 72, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aacpa3657P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Shri Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 65BSection 69Section 69C

…Jaikumar Jain (2023) 147 taxman.com 125 (Mumbai-Trib.); (vi) M/s. Asma Estates & Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITAT, Hyderabad in ITA No.782/Hyd/2020; (vii) PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (2021) 133 taxmann.com 289 (SC); (viii) CIT v. Raj Pal Bhatia (2011) 333 ITR 315 (Delhi); (ix) Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704; (x) Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC); (xi) Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC); (xii) CIT v. Anil Khandelwal [ITA Nos.247 & 248/2012 decided 21.04.2015]; (xiii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC);…

ARIT GARG,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3143/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumararti Garg, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A – 19, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Akupg4398A) Naresh Arora, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A-061, 6Th Floor, Spaze Privy, Delhi. Sector 72, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aacpa3657P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Shri Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 65BSection 69Section 69C

…Jaikumar Jain (2023) 147 taxman.com 125 (Mumbai-Trib.); (vi) M/s. Asma Estates & Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITAT, Hyderabad in ITA No.782/Hyd/2020; (vii) PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (2021) 133 taxmann.com 289 (SC); (viii) CIT v. Raj Pal Bhatia (2011) 333 ITR 315 (Delhi); (ix) Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704; (x) Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC); (xi) Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC); (xii) CIT v. Anil Khandelwal [ITA Nos.247 & 248/2012 decided 21.04.2015]; (xiii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC);…

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. VPR MINING INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NELLORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 939/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.939/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2018-2019 The Dcit, Central Vpr Mining Vs. Infrastructure Private Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. Limited, Nellore. Pin -500 004. Pin – 524003 Andhra Pradesh Telangana. Pan Aaccv6733A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Mv Prasad राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA MV PrasadFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

…1 ITA.No.939/Hyd./2025 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE : SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.939/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2018-2019 The DCIT, Central VPR Mining vs. Infrastructure Private Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. Limited, NELLORE. PIN -500 004. PIN – 524003 Andhra Pradesh Telangana. PAN AACCV6733A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee by: CA MV Prasad राज" व "ारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 03.09.2025 घोष…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 164/AGR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…i in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12-02-2021); the decision in PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, (290 CTR 263) and the decision in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia(333 ITR 315) holding the same consistent view. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. All these decisions support the argument of Ld. AR that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned addition based on alleged bogus purchases could not be made in the hands of the assessee. Respectfully following all these binding judicial preced…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 163/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…i in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12-02-2021); the decision in PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, (290 CTR 263) and the decision in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia(333 ITR 315) holding the same consistent view. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. All these decisions support the argument of Ld. AR that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned addition based on alleged bogus purchases could not be made in the hands of the assessee. Respectfully following all these binding judicial preced…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 161/AGR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…i in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12-02-2021); the decision in PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, (290 CTR 263) and the decision in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia(333 ITR 315) holding the same consistent view. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. All these decisions support the argument of Ld. AR that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned addition based on alleged bogus purchases could not be made in the hands of the assessee. Respectfully following all these binding judicial preced…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 160/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…i in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12-02-2021); the decision in PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, (290 CTR 263) and the decision in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia(333 ITR 315) holding the same consistent view. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. All these decisions support the argument of Ld. AR that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned addition based on alleged bogus purchases could not be made in the hands of the assessee. Respectfully following all these binding judicial preced…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 159/AGR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…i in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12-02-2021); the decision in PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, (290 CTR 263) and the decision in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia(333 ITR 315) holding the same consistent view. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. All these decisions support the argument of Ld. AR that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned addition based on alleged bogus purchases could not be made in the hands of the assessee. Respectfully following all these binding judicial preced…

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 119/AGR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…i in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12-02-2021); the decision in PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, (290 CTR 263) and the decision in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia(333 ITR 315) holding the same consistent view. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. All these decisions support the argument of Ld. AR that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned addition based on alleged bogus purchases could not be made in the hands of the assessee. Respectfully following all these binding judicial preced…

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 118/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…i in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12-02-2021); the decision in PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, (290 CTR 263) and the decision in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia(333 ITR 315) holding the same consistent view. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. All these decisions support the argument of Ld. AR that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned addition based on alleged bogus purchases could not be made in the hands of the assessee. Respectfully following all these binding judicial preced…

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 116/AGR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…i in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12-02-2021); the decision in PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, (290 CTR 263) and the decision in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia(333 ITR 315) holding the same consistent view. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. All these decisions support the argument of Ld. AR that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned addition based on alleged bogus purchases could not be made in the hands of the assessee. Respectfully following all these binding judicial preced…

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 115/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…i in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12-02-2021); the decision in PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, (290 CTR 263) and the decision in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia(333 ITR 315) holding the same consistent view. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. All these decisions support the argument of Ld. AR that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned addition based on alleged bogus purchases could not be made in the hands of the assessee. Respectfully following all these binding judicial preced…

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AGRA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 114/AGR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…i in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12-02-2021); the decision in PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, (290 CTR 263) and the decision in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia(333 ITR 315) holding the same consistent view. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. All these decisions support the argument of Ld. AR that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned addition based on alleged bogus purchases could not be made in the hands of the assessee. Respectfully following all these binding judicial preced…

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 113/AGR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…i in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12-02-2021); the decision in PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, (290 CTR 263) and the decision in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia(333 ITR 315) holding the same consistent view. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. All these decisions support the argument of Ld. AR that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned addition based on alleged bogus purchases could not be made in the hands of the assessee. Respectfully following all these binding judicial preced…

SATYANARAYANA REDDY MANNE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1332/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad and Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1332/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Satyanarayana Reddy The ACIT, Manne, Hyderabad vs. Central Circle-2(4), PAN ADYPM2116L Hyderabad. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : CA MV Prasad and Shri KS Rajendra Kumar For Revenue : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 ORDER PER BENCH : This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 27.11.2024, of the learned Principal Com…

NEELARAJ VINOTH,PERAMBALUR vs. ACIT, CC-2, , TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2119/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2024 & C.O.No. 60/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Neelaraj Vinoth, Income Tax, V. 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle -2, Perambalur – 621 212, Trichy. Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2119/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelaraj Vinoth, Assistant Commissioner Of 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, V. Income Tax, Perambalur – 621 212, Central Circle -2, Tamilnadu. Trichy. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 234A

…any way. In any case, this statement was not even referred to in the satisfaction note and the same also could not have formed the basis for initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia [2011] 333 ITR 315 (Delhi): "In the instant case, admittedly, during the search carried out at the premises of C no books of account or other documents or other assets pertaining to the assessees were found or seized. The entire foundation of the block assessment under section 158BD insofar assessee's were concerned, was the statement of C recorded during the cour…

SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED ,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1). KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 974/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sanghai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Goyal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…OL/2023 SVM Cera Private Limited; A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 assessee cannot be treated as concealed income only on the basis of statements recorded during the search dehors seized material. 010. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Courtin case of Raj Pal Bhatia (2011) 333 ITR 315 (Delhi) held that the statements recorded cannot be construe as a material found during the course of search for the purpose of Chapter 14B. Further, the co-ordinate Bench Jaipur in case of Ajay Traders Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 296/JP/2014, has held that if no incriminating documents are found during the course of search explanation 5A to Section 271(…

SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 973/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sanghai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Goyal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…OL/2023 SVM Cera Private Limited; A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 assessee cannot be treated as concealed income only on the basis of statements recorded during the search dehors seized material. 010. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Courtin case of Raj Pal Bhatia (2011) 333 ITR 315 (Delhi) held that the statements recorded cannot be construe as a material found during the course of search for the purpose of Chapter 14B. Further, the co-ordinate Bench Jaipur in case of Ajay Traders Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 296/JP/2014, has held that if no incriminating documents are found during the course of search explanation 5A to Section 271(…

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 531/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…particulars of income. The surrender was made on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act. He further argued that under similar facts and circumstances which came before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Raj Pal Bhatia [2011] 333 ITR 315/10 taxmann.com 191/202 Taxman 140 (Mag.)wherein the Hon'ble Court held that statement could not be construed as material found during the course of search operations for the purpose of Chapter XIVB. The case law applied by the ld. CIT (A) has mis-placed the fact that in that case certain documents pertaining to share applications were found durin…

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 399/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 397 to 399 & 367/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 to 16-17. M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., cuke The DCIT, Vs. 288-289, Mahaveer Nagar, Central Circle-2, Durgapura, LIC Building, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAHCM 8947 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj…

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3