P.R. Metrani v. CIT

287 ITR 209Supreme Court of India2006#506 most cited

What is P.R. Metrani v. CIT authority for?

Section 132 of the Income Tax Act is a self-contained code governing search and seizure operations. The books of accounts, documents, valuables, or statements recorded during a search can be used as evidence in any subsequent proceedings under the Act, and the section outlines the conditions for issuing warrants of authorization.

187

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

P.R. Metrani v. CIT · Section 132 scope · search and seizure · warrants of authorization · evidence from search · statements recorded during search · incriminating material · block assessment · Section 153A · Section 153C · Section 132(4) · Section 132(4A)

Also reported as

157 Taxmann 3251 SCC 789

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 132(4)Section 131Section 292CSection 115BBE
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 243section 158bdincome tax settlement commissionsection 65b(4)casus omissussection 144atrue and full disclosuresection 292csection 269sscarry forward of lossessection 132(4a)

Judgments citing P.R. Metrani v. CIT

Shri Jaisingh Yadav, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3 Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1290/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1290 & 1291/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Jaisingh Yadav, A.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Mehta Ki Dhani, Chandra Nagar- Central Circle-3, A, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpy 5493 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 18/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are Reproduced As Under: Grounds Of Ita No. 1290/Jp/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. The Learned Ao Has Seriously Erred In Law & Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 1274700 In The Income Of Assessee As Undisclosed Income. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Has Seriously Erred In Rejecting The Appeal Of Assessee & Confirming The Additions Without Considering The Appeal Submission & On Wrong Premise. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Referring The Copy Of Itr Of Female Family Members Of Assessee As Certain Loose Documents Which Contained Incriminating Transaction & Also Erred In Stating That The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 292C

…AO that the documents did not belong to the assessee but the A.O. still proceeded to make the addition in income, which is in our view, was not sustainable. On this proposition, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements: a. P. R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209/157 Taxman 325 (SC) 29 ITA 1290 & 1291/JP/2019_ Jaisingh Yadav Vs ACIT In this judgment, dealing with the provision under Section 132(4A) of the Act, it was held by the Supreme Court:- “A presumption is an inference of fact drawn from other known or proved facts. It is a rule of law under which courts are authorized to draw a particular inferenc…

Sanjay Dangi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22 & 30, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6908/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Dangi, Deputy Commissioner Of 61, 6Th Floor, Twinstar Venus Co., Income Tax, Vs. Op.Hsg.Soc. Ltd., Cuffee Parade, Central Circle-22 & 30, Colaba, Mumbai Mumbai [Pan : Ahspd6986H]

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ubber Products Co Limited Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18; 7. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samar Kumar Sen (Kolkatta Tribunal) (ITA No.952/Kol/2013) Jul 2016; 8. P R Metrani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore – Supreme Court of India 157 Taxmann 325; 9. M Narayanan & Bros Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Special Investigation Circle Salem – 13 Taxmann.com 49; : 6 : 5.1. Finally Ld.AR prayed that the order of CIT(A) may be set aside and AO is directed to delete the addition as the disclosure in the search has been duly explained with reference to bills and vouchers. 6. Ld. DR…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Kartik Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1682/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. R.KFor Respondent: Smt. Puja Jindal, CIT(DR)Smt. Rano
Section 132Section 153Section 153C

…d from the possession of assesse but was seized from the office of SFPL, hence presumption of s.132(4)/292C is not applicable to the assessee. The appellant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Metrani V. CIT: 287 ITR 209 (SC) and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Straptex (India) (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT: 84 ITD 320 and other cases cited wherein it was held that presumption under section 132(4A) of the Act is only against the person in whose possession search material is found and not against any other person. It was further held that the presumption is r…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vasudeva Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of Revenue for AY 2008-09 is

ITA 4248/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish GoelFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-4246-4248/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09) DCIT Vs. M/s. Vasudeva Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-11 2653, Vijay Plaza Building, New Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN : AABCV6233G Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/s. Vasudeva Jewellers Vs. DCIT Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-11 2653, Vijay Plaza Building, New Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN : AABCV6233G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish Goel, Ms. Surbhi Goel, C…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vasudeva Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of Revenue for AY 2008-09 is

ITA 4247/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish GoelFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-4246-4248/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09) DCIT Vs. M/s. Vasudeva Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-11 2653, Vijay Plaza Building, New Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN : AABCV6233G Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/s. Vasudeva Jewellers Vs. DCIT Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-11 2653, Vijay Plaza Building, New Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN : AABCV6233G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish Goel, Ms. Surbhi Goel, C…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vasudeva Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of Revenue for AY 2008-09 is

ITA 4246/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish GoelFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-4246-4248/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09) DCIT Vs. M/s. Vasudeva Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-11 2653, Vijay Plaza Building, New Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN : AABCV6233G Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/s. Vasudeva Jewellers Vs. DCIT Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-11 2653, Vijay Plaza Building, New Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN : AABCV6233G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish Goel, Ms. Surbhi Goel, C…

Vasudeva Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of Revenue for AY 2008-09 is

ITA 3669/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish GoelFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-4246-4248/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09) DCIT Vs. M/s. Vasudeva Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-11 2653, Vijay Plaza Building, New Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN : AABCV6233G Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/s. Vasudeva Jewellers Vs. DCIT Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-11 2653, Vijay Plaza Building, New Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN : AABCV6233G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish Goel, Ms. Surbhi Goel, C…

Malini Vachani Akerkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 36, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-

ITA 801/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Malini Vachani Akerkar, The Dcit Cc 36, Flat 12, Rukiya Manzil, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sophia College Lane, Mumbai - 400020 Bhulabhai Desai Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Abwpv3904D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Desai (Ar) Revenue By : Abha Kala Chanda (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/10/2018

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Desai (AR)For Respondent: Abha Kala Chanda (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 69C

…me rough noting however, the same does not indicate the name of the assessee or any other person. It 4 Assessment Year: 2009-10 also does not contain date, year. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R Mitrani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore 287 ITR 209 (SC) has held that a presumption is an inference of fact drawn from other known or prove facts. It is the rule of law under which courts are authorized to draw a particular inference from particular facts which are of three types i.e. may presume, shall presume and conclusive proof. Since, the words in section 292C are may be presumed, presumptio…

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…4 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is not a mandate that whenever the books of account are seized, the court shall necessarily draw the presumption, irrespective of any other factors which may dissuade the court from doing so." 16. In P. R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) ; [2007] 1 SCC 789 the Supreme Court elaborated upon the nature of presumption under section 132(4A) and the scheme of the provision, in the following words (page 219 of 287 ITR) : "Sub-section (4A) was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amend ment) Act, 1975, with effect from October 1, 1975, to permit a pre sumption to be raised in the circums…

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…4 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is not a mandate that whenever the books of account are seized, the court shall necessarily draw the presumption, irrespective of any other factors which may dissuade the court from doing so." 16. In P. R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) ; [2007] 1 SCC 789 the Supreme Court elaborated upon the nature of presumption under section 132(4A) and the scheme of the provision, in the following words (page 219 of 287 ITR) : "Sub-section (4A) was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amend ment) Act, 1975, with effect from October 1, 1975, to permit a pre sumption to be raised in the circums…

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1467/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…4 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is not a mandate that whenever the books of account are seized, the court shall necessarily draw the presumption, irrespective of any other factors which may dissuade the court from doing so." 16. In P. R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) ; [2007] 1 SCC 789 the Supreme Court elaborated upon the nature of presumption under section 132(4A) and the scheme of the provision, in the following words (page 219 of 287 ITR) : "Sub-section (4A) was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amend ment) Act, 1975, with effect from October 1, 1975, to permit a pre sumption to be raised in the circums…

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…4 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is not a mandate that whenever the books of account are seized, the court shall necessarily draw the presumption, irrespective of any other factors which may dissuade the court from doing so." 16. In P. R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) ; [2007] 1 SCC 789 the Supreme Court elaborated upon the nature of presumption under section 132(4A) and the scheme of the provision, in the following words (page 219 of 287 ITR) : "Sub-section (4A) was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amend ment) Act, 1975, with effect from October 1, 1975, to permit a pre sumption to be raised in the circums…

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1465/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…4 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is not a mandate that whenever the books of account are seized, the court shall necessarily draw the presumption, irrespective of any other factors which may dissuade the court from doing so." 16. In P. R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) ; [2007] 1 SCC 789 the Supreme Court elaborated upon the nature of presumption under section 132(4A) and the scheme of the provision, in the following words (page 219 of 287 ITR) : "Sub-section (4A) was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amend ment) Act, 1975, with effect from October 1, 1975, to permit a pre sumption to be raised in the circums…

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1464/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…4 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is not a mandate that whenever the books of account are seized, the court shall necessarily draw the presumption, irrespective of any other factors which may dissuade the court from doing so." 16. In P. R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) ; [2007] 1 SCC 789 the Supreme Court elaborated upon the nature of presumption under section 132(4A) and the scheme of the provision, in the following words (page 219 of 287 ITR) : "Sub-section (4A) was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amend ment) Act, 1975, with effect from October 1, 1975, to permit a pre sumption to be raised in the circums…

Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1190/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…4 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is not a mandate that whenever the books of account are seized, the court shall necessarily draw the presumption, irrespective of any other factors which may dissuade the court from doing so." 16. In P. R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) ; [2007] 1 SCC 789 the Supreme Court elaborated upon the nature of presumption under section 132(4A) and the scheme of the provision, in the following words (page 219 of 287 ITR) : "Sub-section (4A) was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amend ment) Act, 1975, with effect from October 1, 1975, to permit a pre sumption to be raised in the circums…

Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1189/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…4 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is not a mandate that whenever the books of account are seized, the court shall necessarily draw the presumption, irrespective of any other factors which may dissuade the court from doing so." 16. In P. R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) ; [2007] 1 SCC 789 the Supreme Court elaborated upon the nature of presumption under section 132(4A) and the scheme of the provision, in the following words (page 219 of 287 ITR) : "Sub-section (4A) was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amend ment) Act, 1975, with effect from October 1, 1975, to permit a pre sumption to be raised in the circums…

Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1186/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…4 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is not a mandate that whenever the books of account are seized, the court shall necessarily draw the presumption, irrespective of any other factors which may dissuade the court from doing so." 16. In P. R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) ; [2007] 1 SCC 789 the Supreme Court elaborated upon the nature of presumption under section 132(4A) and the scheme of the provision, in the following words (page 219 of 287 ITR) : "Sub-section (4A) was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amend ment) Act, 1975, with effect from October 1, 1975, to permit a pre sumption to be raised in the circums…

Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1185/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…4 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is not a mandate that whenever the books of account are seized, the court shall necessarily draw the presumption, irrespective of any other factors which may dissuade the court from doing so." 16. In P. R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) ; [2007] 1 SCC 789 the Supreme Court elaborated upon the nature of presumption under section 132(4A) and the scheme of the provision, in the following words (page 219 of 287 ITR) : "Sub-section (4A) was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amend ment) Act, 1975, with effect from October 1, 1975, to permit a pre sumption to be raised in the circums…

Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1182/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…4 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is not a mandate that whenever the books of account are seized, the court shall necessarily draw the presumption, irrespective of any other factors which may dissuade the court from doing so." 16. In P. R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) ; [2007] 1 SCC 789 the Supreme Court elaborated upon the nature of presumption under section 132(4A) and the scheme of the provision, in the following words (page 219 of 287 ITR) : "Sub-section (4A) was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amend ment) Act, 1975, with effect from October 1, 1975, to permit a pre sumption to be raised in the circums…

Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1181/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…4 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is not a mandate that whenever the books of account are seized, the court shall necessarily draw the presumption, irrespective of any other factors which may dissuade the court from doing so." 16. In P. R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) ; [2007] 1 SCC 789 the Supreme Court elaborated upon the nature of presumption under section 132(4A) and the scheme of the provision, in the following words (page 219 of 287 ITR) : "Sub-section (4A) was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amend ment) Act, 1975, with effect from October 1, 1975, to permit a pre sumption to be raised in the circums…