MDLR Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT & Ors.

361 ITR 407High Court2014#17824 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 132Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Judgments citing MDLR Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT & Ors.

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), PUNE vs. RAMESH PANNALAL RANKA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 2944/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.31 & 32/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ramesh Pannalal Ranka Dcit, Central Circle 2(2), Plot No.42, Premnagar Society, Vs. Pune Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aazpr9440C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle 2(2), Ramesh Pannalal Ranka Pune Vs. Plot No.42, Premnagar Society, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aazpr9440C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Ca Sampada Ingale Department By : Shri Amit Bobde, Cit Date Of Hearing : 24-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2026

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and CA Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…arried out u/s 153A of the Act as initiation of search u/s 132 of the Act was mandatory condition to invoke section 153A of the Act. 24. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of MDLR Resorts (P) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2014) 361 ITR 407 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the mandate and language of section 153A(1) does not make any reference to panchanama or the date of panchanama. It does not state that the panchanama is a precondition for invoking the said section. 25. Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribuna…

BIJENDER SINGH LOHIA,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 1529/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sunita Verma, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(24)(iv)Section 69C

…was submitted that the same were not through any banking channel and were rightly disbelieved by the ld.CIT(A). It was also submitted that this amount was not accounted in the cash book of the assessee. The ld. DR has relied MDLR Resorts Ltd. vs. CIT, (2014) 361 ITR 407 (Del) to submit that infirmities in Panchnama are not material to question the search. 15. After taking into consideration of material before us and the submissions, it comes up that Assessing officer has relied on manual cash book of Company for the period 07-10-2014 to 22-04-2015, which was found and seized from premises of Company only. Admit…

BIJENDER SINGH LOHIA,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 1528/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sunita Verma, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(24)(iv)Section 69C

…was submitted that the same were not through any banking channel and were rightly disbelieved by the ld.CIT(A). It was also submitted that this amount was not accounted in the cash book of the assessee. The ld. DR has relied MDLR Resorts Ltd. vs. CIT, (2014) 361 ITR 407 (Del) to submit that infirmities in Panchnama are not material to question the search. 15. After taking into consideration of material before us and the submissions, it comes up that Assessing officer has relied on manual cash book of Company for the period 07-10-2014 to 22-04-2015, which was found and seized from premises of Company only. Admit…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. K.G. FINVESTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6759/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2004-05 Acit, Vs. K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., 10, 3Rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaack4032H Assessment Year : 2004-05 K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 10, 3Rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaack4032H Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Deptt. By : Shri Naveen Chandra, Cit, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor
Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

…oes such jurisdiction is, in fact, absent. As such, we find that this judgment does not help the Revenue in any manner. 12. The ld. DR next pressed into service another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in MDLR Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR 407 (Del) to prop up his contention that mere failure of the Revenue to name the assessee in warrant of authorization could not affect the validity of notice issued u/s 153A of the Act. In that case, notice u/s 153A was issued pursuant to search and seizure operation u/s 132 in the premises of the petitioner. The Assessing Officer passed assessmen…

K.G. FINVEST PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6662/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2004-05 Acit, Vs. K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., 10, 3Rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaack4032H Assessment Year : 2004-05 K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 10, 3Rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaack4032H Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Deptt. By : Shri Naveen Chandra, Cit, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor
Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

…oes such jurisdiction is, in fact, absent. As such, we find that this judgment does not help the Revenue in any manner. 12. The ld. DR next pressed into service another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in MDLR Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR 407 (Del) to prop up his contention that mere failure of the Revenue to name the assessee in warrant of authorization could not affect the validity of notice issued u/s 153A of the Act. In that case, notice u/s 153A was issued pursuant to search and seizure operation u/s 132 in the premises of the petitioner. The Assessing Officer passed assessmen…

MDLR Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT & Ors. (361 ITR 407) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax