M/s Vetrival Minerals and Ors. v. ACIT

437 ITR 178High Court2021#11696 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153CSection 65BSection 69A

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 65asection 2(12a)section 194qsection 153(c)(1)section 163section 66section 65bsection 65section 158b(b)section 153(c)section 158bb(1)

Judgments citing M/s Vetrival Minerals and Ors. v. ACIT

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

…place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras Hon’ble Madras Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s High Court in the case of M/s High Court in the case of M/s Vetrival Minerals and Ors v. ACIT reported in 437 ITR 178 Vetrival Minerals and Ors v. ACIT reported in 437 ITR 178has held Vetrival Minerals and Ors v. ACIT reported in 437 ITR 178 Vetrival Minerals and Ors v. ACIT reported in 437 ITR 178 that in absence of certificate u/s 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of so-called electronic record i.e. copies of Excel Sheet, Excel work note book etc., -…

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

…place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras Hon’ble Madras Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s High Court in the case of M/s High Court in the case of M/s Vetrival Minerals and Ors v. ACIT reported in 437 ITR 178 Vetrival Minerals and Ors v. ACIT reported in 437 ITR 178has held Vetrival Minerals and Ors v. ACIT reported in 437 ITR 178 Vetrival Minerals and Ors v. ACIT reported in 437 ITR 178 that in absence of certificate u/s 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of so-called electronic record i.e. copies of Excel Sheet, Excel work note book etc., -…

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

…place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras Hon’ble Madras Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s High Court in the case of M/s High Court in the case of M/s Vetrival Minerals and Ors v. ACIT reported in 437 ITR 178 Vetrival Minerals and Ors v. ACIT reported in 437 ITR 178has held Vetrival Minerals and Ors v. ACIT reported in 437 ITR 178 Vetrival Minerals and Ors v. ACIT reported in 437 ITR 178 that in absence of certificate u/s 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of so-called electronic record i.e. copies of Excel Sheet, Excel work note book etc., -…

MEENA SURESH RAITHATHA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4813/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Deepak KanabarFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 65BSection 69

…ant wanted to cross- examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. * Vetrivel Minerals vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai [2021] 129 taxmann.com 126 (Madras)/[2021] 282 Taxman 321 (Madras)/[2021] 437 ITR 178 (Madras)[03-08-2021] : 21. Therefore, non-furnishing of the panchanama to the assessee is a violation of the principles of natural justice as it disables the petitioners from having knowledge of the seized materials and the alleged incriminating materials relied upon by the respondent department. 22. On the next issue of refusal of cross-examin…

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

ITA 468/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 153CSection 153D

…idence Act, \n1872 particularly special provisions relating to evidence relating to Section 65A, \nSection 65B and Section 66 are not relevant.\n76. The decision of this court in the case of Vetrivel Madras v. ACIT, [2021] 129 \ntaxmann.com 126/282 Taxman 321/437 ITR 178 (Madras) fails to note that \nSection 658 cannot be invoked in a quasi-judicial proceedings as the assessing \nofficers are not governed by strict rules of evidence. Therefore, I am unable to \nfollow the view of the Court in Vetrivel Madras v. ACIT, ITR 178 (Madras). [2021] \n129 taxmann.com 126/282 Taxman 321/437\n77. The definition of \"Books…

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 467/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 153CSection 153D

…ence Act, \n1872 particularly special provisions relating to evidence relating to Section 65A, \nSection 65B and Section 66 are not relevant.\n\n76. The decision of this court in the case of Vetrivel Madras v. ACIT, [2021] 129 \ntaxmann.com 126/282 Taxman 321/437 ITR 178 (Madras) fails to note that \nSection 65B cannot be invoked in a quasi-judicial proceedings as the assessing \nofficers are not governed by strict rules of evidence. Therefore, I am unable to \nfollow the view of the Court in Vetrivel Madras v. ACIT, ITR 178 (Madras). [2021] \n129 taxmann.com 126/282 Taxman 321/437\n\n77. The definition of \"Book…

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 466/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139Section 153CSection 153D

…Evidence Act,\n1872 particularly special provisions relating to evidence relating to Section 65A,\nSection 65B and Section 66 are not relevant.\n76. The decision of this court in the case of Vetrivel Madras v. ACIT, [2021] 129\ntaxmann.com 126/282 Taxman 321/437 ITR 178 (Madras) fails to note that\nSection 658 cannot be invoked in a quasi-judicial proceedings as the assessing\nofficers are not governed by strict rules of evidence. Therefore, I am unable to\nfollow the view of the Court in Vetrivel Madras v. ACIT, ITR 178 (Madras). [2021]\n129 taxmann.com 126/282 Taxman 321/437\n77. The definition of \"Books and…

RAKESH KUMAR BANSAL,GUJRAT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CERCLE , GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2516/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2515/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Geeta Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Aispb9075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2516/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Rakesh Kumar Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Abwpb1370M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 292CSection 69

…nnot be admitted without compliance to the provisions of section 65B(4) rws 65B(2) of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. 12. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Vetrivel Minerals v ACIT, Central Circle (2021) 437 ITR 178 wherein it has been held as - “24. As contended by the writ petitioners, when the entire assessment has been framed only on the basis of the so-called electronic record which are said to be copies of Excel Sheet, Excel work note book etc., non-compliance of section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of…

GEETA BANSAL,GUJRAT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2515/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2515/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Geeta Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Aispb9075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2516/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Rakesh Kumar Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Abwpb1370M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 292CSection 69

…nnot be admitted without compliance to the provisions of section 65B(4) rws 65B(2) of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. 12. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Vetrivel Minerals v ACIT, Central Circle (2021) 437 ITR 178 wherein it has been held as - “24. As contended by the writ petitioners, when the entire assessment has been framed only on the basis of the so-called electronic record which are said to be copies of Excel Sheet, Excel work note book etc., non-compliance of section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of…

M/s Vetrival Minerals and Ors. v. ACIT (437 ITR 178) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax