Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal

290 CTR 263High Court2016#102 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal authority for?

Assessment based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act requires the statement to be relatable to incriminating material or evidence found during the search, especially when considering Section 158BB(1) which restricts computation of undisclosed income to evidence found during search.

583

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,541 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Harjeev Aggarwal · section 132(4) · section 158BB(1) · incriminating material · undisclosed income · search and seizure · statement recorded · income tax assessment

Also reported as

70 Taxmann.com 95

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132(4)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 158b(b)section 158bb(1)section 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 158bbsection 158basection 153(a)section 201(3)section 150unexplained jewellerystatement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal

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)

…ons including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi 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.…

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)

…ons including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi 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.…

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)

…ons including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi 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.…

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)

…ons including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi 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.…

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)

…ons including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi 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.…

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)

…ons including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi 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.…

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)

…ons including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi 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.…

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)

…ons including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi 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.…

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)

…ons including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi 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.…

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…

Sudhir Singh Yadav, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Gurgaon

ITA 3001/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2999 to 3005/Del/2024 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2017-18) Sushen Mohan Gupta, Vs. ACIT, 10 hailey Road, New Delhi Central Circle-15, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AFEPG7593R Assessee by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Shri Shivam Garg, Adv Revenue by: Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department Shri Ruchir Joshi, Adv Date of Hearing 21/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/05/2025 O R D E R PER BENCH 1. The appeals in ITA Nos. 2999 to 3…

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 827/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 824 to 827/Mum/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle – 8(4), Aachman Vanijya Private Limited Mumbai Vs Main Building, 2nd Floor 19, R.N. Mukherjee Road Dal Housie Kolkata - 700001 [PAN: AACCA5165H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 69 to 72/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2015-16 Aachman Vanijya Private Limited DCIT, Central Circle – 8(4), Main Build…

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 826/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 824 to 827/Mum/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle – 8(4), Aachman Vanijya Private Limited Mumbai Vs Main Building, 2nd Floor 19, R.N. Mukherjee Road Dal Housie Kolkata - 700001 [PAN: AACCA5165H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 69 to 72/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2015-16 Aachman Vanijya Private Limited DCIT, Central Circle – 8(4), Main Build…

DCIT, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 825/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 824 to 827/Mum/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle – 8(4), Aachman Vanijya Private Limited Mumbai Vs Main Building, 2nd Floor 19, R.N. Mukherjee Road Dal Housie Kolkata - 700001 [PAN: AACCA5165H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 69 to 72/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2015-16 Aachman Vanijya Private Limited DCIT, Central Circle – 8(4), Main Build…

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 824/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 824 to 827/Mum/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle – 8(4), Aachman Vanijya Private Limited Mumbai Vs Main Building, 2nd Floor 19, R.N. Mukherjee Road Dal Housie Kolkata - 700001 [PAN: AACCA5165H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 69 to 72/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2015-16 Aachman Vanijya Private Limited DCIT, Central Circle – 8(4), Main Build…

Imtiaz Farooqi, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 149/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 148 & 149/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Imtiaz Farooqi DCIT, Central Circle-1(3) PAN :AADPF1807D Vs. Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Sr.DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 26/02/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 19/03/2025 आदेश /…

Imtiaz Farooqi, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 148/HYD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 148 & 149/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Imtiaz Farooqi DCIT, Central Circle-1(3) PAN :AADPF1807D Vs. Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Sr.DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 26/02/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 19/03/2025 आदेश /…

Mohit Gupta HUF, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44(6), Delhi

ITA 2511/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

…at statement recorded cannot be held as incriminating material: 46 | P a g e 47 ITA Nos. 2713-2714/Del/2023; ITA Nos. 7,51,271/Del/2024 etc. Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. A. Ajay Gupta Vs DCIT 81 Taxmann.com 42 (Delhi ITAT) B. CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 70 Taxmann.com 95 (Del) C. CIT Vs Sunil Aggarwal 64 Taxmann.com 107 (Del) 8.12 We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties; we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. The primary contention of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2013-14 till 2015-16 is that no addition can be made by the AO in these years in t…

Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that

ITA 1192/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 153CSection 250

…ved as stated hereinabove, which was confirmed by the Tribunal. It would not be out of place to mention that this order of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has been confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court also. (ii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Harjeev Agarwal (70 Taxmann.com 95) held thus: A statement of a M/S Maverick Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.& others person, which is not relatable to any incriminating document or material found during search and seizure operation cannot, by itself, trigger a block assessment. The undisclosed income of an Assessee has to be computed on the basis of evidence and material found d…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Jaipur vs. Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that

ITA 1149/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 153CSection 250

…ved as stated hereinabove, which was confirmed by the Tribunal. It would not be out of place to mention that this order of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has been confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court also. ii. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Harjeev Agarwal (70 Taxmann.com 95) held thus: A statement of a M/S Maverick Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.& others person, which is not relatable to any incriminating document or material found during search and seizure operation cannot, by itself, trigger a block assessment. The undisclosed income of an Assessee has to be computed on the basis of evidence and material found d…