PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.

Shri Dharmendra A Babel, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…is of statement made by the assessee any absence of any other incriminating material, addition can be made or not in concluded assessment years. The answer has been given by the Hon'ble Delhi HC in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 82 (Delhi), wherein the question of law framed as per paragraph no.3, the Hon'ble High Court in paragraph no.44 has categorically held that the addition made under Section 68 of the Act on account of statement made by the Assessee's Directors in the course of search under Section 132 of the Act were rightly deleted by the ITAT. Vide Para no.45, it wa…

M/S Sahaj Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby Tvarkey, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.332/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sahaj Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) B-301, Sorrento Building 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Besant Road, Santcruz (W) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400054. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawfs2944L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…the assessee to any wrong doing itself constitutes incriminating material to justify additions in unabated assessments. The Ld. CIT, DR further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the case of Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. According to him, since the statement of one of the Partner, Shri Sunil Shah was also c…

M/S Sahaj Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby Tvarkey, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.332/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sahaj Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) B-301, Sorrento Building 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Besant Road, Santcruz (W) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400054. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawfs2944L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…the assessee to any wrong doing itself constitutes incriminating material to justify additions in unabated assessments. The Ld. CIT, DR further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the case of Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. According to him, since the statement of one of the Partner, Shri Sunil Shah was also c…

M/S Sahaj Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby Tvarkey, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.332/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sahaj Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) B-301, Sorrento Building 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Besant Road, Santcruz (W) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400054. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawfs2944L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…the assessee to any wrong doing itself constitutes incriminating material to justify additions in unabated assessments. The Ld. CIT, DR further contended that, the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the case of Pr.CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82), CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal (241 Taxmann 199), amongst others, wherein it was held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify addition in unabated assessments, were distinguishable on facts from the present case. According to him, since the statement of one of the Partner, Shri Sunil Shah was also c…

Shri Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune vs. Dy CIT Central Cir-2(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

…statement cannot, on a standalone basis, without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations, empowers the Assessing Officer to frame the block assessment. This court in Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 82 (Delhi); [2017] SCC Online Del 9591¹ has inter alia held that (page 101 of 397 ITR): "38. Fifthly, statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this court in Harjeev Aggarwal." 9. In CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal [2016] 6 ITR-OL 504 (Delhi); [2016] 290 CTR 263; [2016]…

Shri Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune vs. Dy CIT Central Cir-2(3, Mumbai

Accordingly, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

…statement cannot, on a standalone basis, without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations, empowers the Assessing Officer to frame the block assessment. This court in Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 82 (Delhi); [2017] SCC Online Del 9591¹ has inter alia held that (page 101 of 397 ITR): "38. Fifthly, statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this court in Harjeev Aggarwal." 9. In CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal [2016] 6 ITR-OL 504 (Delhi); [2016] 290 CTR 263; [2016]…

Dy.C.I.T. Cent. Cir-6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Dilip B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objections for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14

…said to be incriminating material or documents gathered in the course of search conducted against the assessee. 17. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt Ltd (397 ITR 82). In this case along with assessee’s search, simultaneous search was also conducted upon Mr. T who admitted to providing accommodation entries to the assessee in form of share application monies, in lieu of cash. Relying on the statement of Mr. T, the AO made additions u/s 68 in the assessments framed u/s 153A for unabated AYs 2005-06 to 2009-10.…

Dy.CIT Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Netalter Software Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

…rector and does not know about day-to-day activities of the assessee company. Even otherwise, merely on the statement of a third party, addition could not have been made. Hon’ble Delhi High Court has categorically held in case of Best Infrastructure Limited [ 397 ITR 82 ] that statement of a third party cannot be considered as incriminating material for making addition in the hands of the assessment. Similar Views are expressed by hon Bombay High court in CIT V Rakesh Ramani 94 taxmann.com 461 , Honourable Madras High court in CIT v Jaya Lakshmi Ammal 390 ITR 189 and Honourable Andhra Pradesh High court in CIT V…

Dy.Comm of Income Tax Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai vs. Netalter Software Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

…rector and does not know about day-to-day activities of the assessee company. Even otherwise, merely on the statement of a third party, addition could not have been made. Hon’ble Delhi High Court has categorically held in case of Best Infrastructure Limited [ 397 ITR 82 ] that statement of a third party cannot be considered as incriminating material for making addition in the hands of the assessment. Similar Views are expressed by hon Bombay High court in CIT V Rakesh Ramani 94 taxmann.com 461 , Honourable Madras High court in CIT v Jaya Lakshmi Ammal 390 ITR 189 and Honourable Andhra Pradesh High court in CIT V…

Dy.Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Netalter Software Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

…rector and does not know about day-to-day activities of the assessee company. Even otherwise, merely on the statement of a third party, addition could not have been made. Hon’ble Delhi High Court has categorically held in case of Best Infrastructure Limited [ 397 ITR 82 ] that statement of a third party cannot be considered as incriminating material for making addition in the hands of the assessment. Similar Views are expressed by hon Bombay High court in CIT V Rakesh Ramani 94 taxmann.com 461 , Honourable Madras High court in CIT v Jaya Lakshmi Ammal 390 ITR 189 and Honourable Andhra Pradesh High court in CIT V…

Jt CIT (OSD) Central Circle1(4), Mumbai vs. Parel Graphic Print Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 880/M/2022 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Jt. Commissioner Of Income Podar Media Magazine & Tax Graphics Prints Pvt. Ltd. (Osd), Central Circle 1(4) 85, Podar Centre, 9Th Floor, 902, Parel Post Office Lane, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Opp. Ambedkar Road, M.K. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecp9649K Jt. Commissioner Of Income Parel Graphic Prints Pvt Tax Limited (Osd), Central Circle 1(4) 85, Podar Centre, 9Th Floor, 902, Parel Post Office Lane, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Opp. Ambedkar Road, M.K. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcp2425D Assessee By : Ms. Nishitamandalaywala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nimesh Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2022

…ed. Such is the mandate of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shinghad Technical Education Society 397 ITR 344 and also of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573. Honourable Delhi high court in case of [2017] 397 ITR 82 (Del)PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. BEST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. has held that: - “38. Fifthly, statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this court in CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). Lastly, as already pointed ITA Nos.874 & 880/Mum/2022 P…

Joint CIT (OSD) Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Podar Media Magazine & Graphics Prints Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 880/M/2022 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Jt. Commissioner Of Income Podar Media Magazine & Tax Graphics Prints Pvt. Ltd. (Osd), Central Circle 1(4) 85, Podar Centre, 9Th Floor, 902, Parel Post Office Lane, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Opp. Ambedkar Road, M.K. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecp9649K Jt. Commissioner Of Income Parel Graphic Prints Pvt Tax Limited (Osd), Central Circle 1(4) 85, Podar Centre, 9Th Floor, 902, Parel Post Office Lane, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Opp. Ambedkar Road, M.K. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcp2425D Assessee By : Ms. Nishitamandalaywala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nimesh Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2022

…ed. Such is the mandate of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shinghad Technical Education Society 397 ITR 344 and also of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573. Honourable Delhi high court in case of [2017] 397 ITR 82 (Del)PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. BEST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. has held that: - “38. Fifthly, statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this court in CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). Lastly, as already pointed ITA Nos.874 & 880/Mum/2022 P…