(i) Pr. CIT v. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd.

398 ITR 71High Court2017#7019 most cited

What is (i) Pr. CIT v. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd. authority for?

Approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act is administrative in nature and does not require elaborate reasoning. The absence of detailed reasoning in the approval does not invalidate the assessment unless there is a complete lack of application of mind by the approving authority.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd · Section 153D · approval · search assessment · administrative · absence of reasoning · application of mind · validity of assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 131Section 147Section 142(2A)

Issues it is cited on

section 65(b)section 132(5)section 132(3)section 65asection 62section 119(1)time barred assessmentsection 65b(4)section 114(e)section 59sanction under section 151section 90a

Judgments citing (i) Pr. CIT v. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd.

Amolak Singh Bhatia, Bilaspur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-08, Delhi

ITA 3502/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 246

…, therefore, cannot be taken into account while computing the period of limitation under section 153B of the Act. For the above proposition assessee relies upon the following judgments: (i) Pr. CIT v. PPC Business & Products (P.) Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 10/398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT v. D.D. Axles (P.) Ltd. [2010] 195 Taxman 277/323 ITR 558 (Delhi). (iii) CIT v. Deepak Aggarwal [2008] 175 Taxman 1/[2009] 308 ITR 116 (Delhi). (iv) CIT v. S.K. Katyal [2009] 177 Taxman 380/308 ITR 168 (Delhi). (v) PCIT Central v. Hitesh Ashok Vaswani, 2011 (11) TMI 347- Gujarat High Court (vi) C. Ramaiah Reddy v. Assi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1596/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…n the rights or obligations of the assessee, but only considers whether the AD has fulfilled the requirements of Chapter XIV." 19. We also gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PPC Business & Products (P) Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 71 wherein it was categorically held that, the approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act is not a quasi-judicial order and the absence of elaborate reasoning in the approval does not by itself vitiate assessment. 20. It is further observed that the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Delhi in the case of Kailash Gahlot Vs DCIT in ITA No. 3431/Del/202…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are

ITA 1536/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…pon the rights or obligations of the assessee, but only considers whether the AD has fulfilled the requirements of Chapter XIV." 19. We also gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PPC Business & Products (P) Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 71 wherein it was categorically held that, the approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act is not a quasi-judicial order and the absence of elaborate reasoning in the approval does not by itself vitiate assessment. 20. It is further observed that the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Delhi in the case of Kailash Gahlot Vs DCIT in ITA No. 3431/Del/2023 d…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1529/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…n the rights or obligations of the assessee, but only considers whether the AD has fulfilled the requirements of Chapter XIV." 19. We also gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PPC Business & Products (P) Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 71 wherein it was categorically held that, the approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act is not a quasi-judicial order and the absence of elaborate reasoning in the approval does not by itself vitiate assessment. 20. It is further observed that the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Delhi in the case of Kailash Gahlot Vs DCIT in ITA No. 3431/Del/202…

Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1489/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…n the rights or obligations of the assessee, but only considers whether the AD has fulfilled the requirements of Chapter XIV." 19. We also gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PPC Business & Products (P) Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 71 wherein it was categorically held that, the approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act is not a quasi-judicial order and the absence of elaborate reasoning in the approval does not by itself vitiate assessment. 20. It is further observed that the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Delhi in the case of Kailash Gahlot Vs DCIT in ITA No. 3431/Del/202…

Periasamy Anbunathan, Karur vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1488/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…n the rights or obligations of the assessee, but only considers whether the AD has fulfilled the requirements of Chapter XIV." 19. We also gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PPC Business & Products (P) Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 71 wherein it was categorically held that, the approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act is not a quasi-judicial order and the absence of elaborate reasoning in the approval does not by itself vitiate assessment. 20. It is further observed that the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Delhi in the case of Kailash Gahlot Vs DCIT in ITA No. 3431/Del/202…

Kailash Gahlot, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 3431/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3431/Del./2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Kailash Gahlot Deputy Commissioner Of C-6/6172, Vasant Kunj, Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle-4, Pan: Aajpg2849N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Sh. Anmol Jha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 153DSection 69C

…r the first time between the AO and the Addl. CIT at the time of approval of the search assessment. 23. In cases of Smt. Shreelekha Damani (2019) 307 CTR 218 (Bom), Sunrise Finlease (P) Ltd (2018) 403 ITR 512 (Guj) and PPC Business & Products (P) Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 71 (Del), the Hon’ble High Court has held that the approval under section 153D of the Act is administrative in nature. It does not require elaborate reasoning. The absence of detailed discussion in the approval under section 153D of the Act does not make the assessment invalid, unless it is shown that there was no application of mind at all. The requ…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 180/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…oose sheets are not impracticable to impound, Prohibitory Order placed by the search party is not a valid Prohibitory Order. In this connection, the Ld. AR heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 179/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…oose sheets are not impracticable to impound, Prohibitory Order placed by the search party is not a valid Prohibitory Order. In this connection, the Ld. AR heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 178/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…oose sheets are not impracticable to impound, Prohibitory Order placed by the search party is not a valid Prohibitory Order. In this connection, the Ld. AR heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 177/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…oose sheets are not impracticable to impound, Prohibitory Order placed by the search party is not a valid Prohibitory Order. In this connection, the Ld. AR heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 176/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…oose sheets are not impracticable to impound, Prohibitory Order placed by the search party is not a valid Prohibitory Order. In this connection, the Ld. AR heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 175/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…oose sheets are not impracticable to impound, Prohibitory Order placed by the search party is not a valid Prohibitory Order. In this connection, the Ld. AR heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 174/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…oose sheets are not impracticable to impound, Prohibitory Order placed by the search party is not a valid Prohibitory Order. In this connection, the Ld. AR heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 173/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…oose sheets are not impracticable to impound, Prohibitory Order placed by the search party is not a valid Prohibitory Order. In this connection, the Ld. AR heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 172/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…oose sheets are not impracticable to impound, Prohibitory Order placed by the search party is not a valid Prohibitory Order. In this connection, the Ld. AR heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Delhi High Court). (ii) CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P) Ltd [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi). (iii) CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal {2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi). (iv) CIT vs. S.K. Katyal {2009] 308 ITR 168 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) 11 (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin…