CIT v. Sunil Agarwal (

369 ITR 171High Court2014#328 most cited

What is CIT v. Sunil Agarwal ( authority for?

A statement recorded under section 132(4) that is subsequently retracted cannot solely form the basis for an addition to income or an assessment order, particularly under section 158BC.

254

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sunil Agarwal · Sunil Agarwal · Naresh Kumar Aggarwal · 369 ITR 171 · section 132(4) statement · retracted statement · undisclosed income · section 158BC assessment · sole basis for addition · search and seizure assessment · retraction of statement · incriminating material

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153CSection 147Section 69ASection 69CSection 132

Issues it is cited on

section 158b(b)section 158bb(1)section 153(a)section 158bbaccumulated profitsretracted statementsection 94section 2(22)section 2(22)(e)deemed dividendsection 268aretraction of statement

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunil Agarwal (

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 486/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
Section 132(4)Section 153C

…ITR 82 (Delhi), where it was held that, statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, by themselves do not constitute incriminating material as has been explained in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal(supra). In the case of CIT v. Naresh Kumar Agarwal [2015] 369 ITR 171(AP), the Hon'ble Court held that the provision embedded in sub-section 132(4) of the Act, is based on the well-established rule of evidence that mere confessional statement without there being any documentary proof shall not be used in evidence against the person who made such statement. Unsubstantiated and uncorroborated seized material alone ca…

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 485/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 132(4)Section 153C

…ITR 82 (Delhi), where it was held that, statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, by themselves do not constitute incriminating material as has been explained in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal(supra). In the case of CIT v. Naresh Kumar Agarwal [2015] 369 ITR 171(AP), the Hon'ble Court held that the provision embedded in sub-section 132(4) of the Act, is based on the well-established rule of evidence that mere confessional statement without there being any documentary proof shall not be used in evidence against the person who made such statement. Unsubstantiated and uncorroborated seized material alone ca…

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 484/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 132(4)Section 153C

…ITR 82 (Delhi), where it was held that, statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, by themselves do not constitute incriminating material as has been explained in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal(supra). In the case of CIT v. Naresh Kumar Agarwal [2015] 369 ITR 171(AP), the Hon'ble Court held that the provision embedded in sub-section 132(4) of the Act, is based on the well-established rule of evidence that mere confessional statement without there being any documentary proof shall not be used in evidence against the person who made such statement. Unsubstantiated and uncorroborated seized material alone ca…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…dversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Rad…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Rad…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…dversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Rad…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Rad…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…dversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Rad…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Rad…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Rad…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Rad…

ROHIT AGGARWAL,AMBALA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 428/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 131Section 153A(1)(b)

…be conclusive one and the maker thereof could show that it was incorrect. Further, a retracted statement would have no evidentiary value and the same could not be used in the assessment. The case laws of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunil Aggarwal (379 ITR 367) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai vs CIT (88 ITR 293) support this proposition. In these decisions, it has been held that the party was entitled to show and prove that the admission made by him previously was not correct and true. By considering that facts and circumstances i…

ROHIT AGGARWAL,AMBALA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 427/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 131Section 153A(1)(b)

…be conclusive one and the maker thereof could show that it was incorrect. Further, a retracted statement would have no evidentiary value and the same could not be used in the assessment. The case laws of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunil Aggarwal (379 ITR 367) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai vs CIT (88 ITR 293) support this proposition. In these decisions, it has been held that the party was entitled to show and prove that the admission made by him previously was not correct and true. By considering that facts and circumstances i…

ROHIT AGGARWAL,ROHIT AGGARWAL, AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHADIGARH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 324/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 131Section 153A(1)(b)

…be conclusive one and the maker thereof could show that it was incorrect. Further, a retracted statement would have no evidentiary value and the same could not be used in the assessment. The case laws of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunil Aggarwal (379 ITR 367) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai vs CIT (88 ITR 293) support this proposition. In these decisions, it has been held that the party was entitled to show and prove that the admission made by him previously was not correct and true. By considering that facts and circumstances i…

KAYUM RAZAK DHANANI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 634/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

…and in most such cases, are subsequently retracted. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that such statements, which are retracted subsequently, do not form the sole basis for computing undisclosed income of an assessee. In CIT v. Naresh Kumar Agarwal [2014] 369 ITR 171 (T&AP), a Division Bench of the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act which is retracted cannot constitute a basis for an order under section 158BC of the Act.. . ." 21. This case was challenged in the Supreme Court and SLP No. 13345 of 2018 was admitted. But subsequently, it was d…

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

ITA 26/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…ions/ disallowances made based solely on the statements recorded without any incriminating material are bad in law. The appellant places reliance on the following decisions i. CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (Del.) ii. CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (2015) 379 ITR 367 (Del.) iii. PCIT v. PGF Ltd. in ITA No. 528/2019 dated 14.11.2022 (Del.) iv. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) v. CIT v. Jayalakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) vi. ITO v. Ramachandra Setty & Sons (2024) 163 taxmann.com 666 (Bang. - Trib.) g. The appellant also places reliance on the Board's Circular…

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

ITA 25/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…ces made based solely on the statements recorded without any incriminating material are bad in law. The appellant places reliance on the following decisions i. ii. iii. iv. V. vi. CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (Del.) CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (2015) 379 ITR 367 (Del.) PCIT v. PGF Ltd. in ITA No. 528/2019 dated 14.11.2022 (Del.) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) CIT v. Jayalakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) ITO v. Ramachandra Setty & Sons (2024) 163 taxmann.com 666 (Bang. - Trib.) g. The appellant also places reliance on the Board's Circular in F. No. 286/2…

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 24/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…ns/ disallowances made based solely on the statements recorded without any incriminating material are bad in law. The appellant places reliance on the following decisions – i. CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (Del.) ii. CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (2015) 379 ITR 367 (Del.) iii. PCIT v. PGF Ltd. in ITA No. 528/2019 dated 14.11.2022 (Del.) iv. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) v. CIT v. Jayalakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) vi. ITO v. Ramachandra Setty & Sons (2024) 163 taxmann.com 666 (Bang. - Trib.) ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Page 36 of 47 g. The appellant als…

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

ITA 23/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…ces made based solely on the statements recorded without any incriminating material are bad in law. The appellant places reliance on the following decisions i. ii. iii. iv. V. vi. CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (Del.) CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (2015) 379 ITR 367 (Del.) PCIT v. PGF Ltd. in ITA No. 528/2019 dated 14.11.2022 (Del.) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) CIT v. Jayalakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) ITO v. Ramachandra Setty & Sons (2024) 163 taxmann.com 666 (Bang. - Trib.) Page 35 of 47 ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 g. The appellant also places relianc…

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 22/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…ns/ disallowances made based solely on the statements recorded without any incriminating material are bad in law. The appellant places reliance on the following decisions – i. CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (Del.) ii. CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (2015) 379 ITR 367 (Del.) iii. PCIT v. PGF Ltd. in ITA No. 528/2019 dated 14.11.2022 (Del.) iv. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) v. CIT v. Jayalakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) vi. ITO v. Ramachandra Setty & Sons (2024) 163 taxmann.com 666 (Bang. - Trib.) ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Page 36 of 47 g. The appellant als…

Showing 1–20 of 254 · Page 1 of 13

...