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

397 ITR 82High Court2017#66 most cited

What is PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. authority for?

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not by itself constitute incriminating material for making additions to income.

786

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Best Infrastructure India · Section 132(4) · incriminating material · retracted statement · search assessment · addition without evidence · evidentiary value of statement · statement under search

Also reported as

84 Taxmann.com 2872017 SCC OnLine DEL 9591

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132(4)Section 132Section 147Section 69ASection 153CSection 148

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 158b(b)section 149(1)(c)section 158bb(1)section 4(2)section 158basection 153(a)section 158bbsection 201(3)statement under section 132(4)retracted statementsection 150

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

Kamla Ankur, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1280/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.12.2018 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 to 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 to 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ DCIT, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :AAIFK4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue by: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing: 15/0…

Nilesh M. Agarwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC-4(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5110/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5110/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5111/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5112/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5113/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5114/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5115/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5116/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer Singh/ ShriFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…assessment — CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2015) 281 CTR (Del) 45: (2015) 126 DTK (Del) 130: (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del), 15 I.T.A. No. 5110/Mum/2018 & Others Shri Nilesh M. Agrawal Principal CIT vs. Zest Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd (2017) 159 DTR (Del) 257: (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Del) and CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 133 DTR (Del) 122 : (2016) 290 CTR (Del) 263 followed. ii) Ultimate Builders v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA No. 134/Ind/2019), ITAT Indore wherein it was observed that; Coming to the issue of addition made by the AO on the bash of the statement but no reference been given to the incriminating…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 66/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…the assessing officer is perverse for the following reasons: i. None of the persons whose names have been mentioned have been examined. The appellant relies on the following decisions for the above proposition: a. PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd 397 ITR 82 (Page No. 1263 of PB-6) b. CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 70 Taxmann.com 95 (Page No. 1278 and 1279 of PB-6) c. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd) v. ACIT ITA Nos. 500 to 506/Bang/2018 (Para 188 at page 104 of ITAT order) ii. The seized documents are not in the letter head of the appellant nor these documents mention the amount…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 65/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…the assessing officer is perverse for the following reasons: i. None of the persons whose names have been mentioned have been examined. The appellant relies on the following decisions for the above proposition: a. PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd 397 ITR 82 (Page No. 1263 of PB-6) b. CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 70 Taxmann.com 95 (Page No. 1278 and 1279 of PB-6) c. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd) v. ACIT ITA Nos. 500 to 506/Bang/2018 (Para 188 at page 104 of ITAT order) ii. The seized documents are not in the letter head of the appellant nor these documents mention the amount…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 64/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…the assessing officer is perverse for the following reasons: i. None of the persons whose names have been mentioned have been examined. The appellant relies on the following decisions for the above proposition: a. PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd 397 ITR 82 (Page No. 1263 of PB-6) b. CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 70 Taxmann.com 95 (Page No. 1278 and 1279 of PB-6) c. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd) v. ACIT ITA Nos. 500 to 506/Bang/2018 (Para 188 at page 104 of ITAT order) ii. The seized documents are not in the letter head of the appellant nor these documents mention the amount…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. Sri V C Charantimath, Bagalkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 236/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…the assessing officer is perverse for the following reasons: i. None of the persons whose names have been mentioned have been examined. The appellant relies on the following decisions for the above proposition: a. PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd 397 ITR 82 (Page No. 1263 of PB-6) b. CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 70 Taxmann.com 95 (Page No. 1278 and 1279 of PB-6) c. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd) v. ACIT ITA Nos. 500 to 506/Bang/2018 (Para 188 at page 104 of ITAT order) ii. The seized documents are not in the letter head of the appellant nor these documents mention the amount…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. Sri.V.C.Charantimath, Bagalkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 235/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…the assessing officer is perverse for the following reasons: i. None of the persons whose names have been mentioned have been examined. The appellant relies on the following decisions for the above proposition: a. PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd 397 ITR 82 (Page No. 1263 of PB-6) b. CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 70 Taxmann.com 95 (Page No. 1278 and 1279 of PB-6) c. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd) v. ACIT ITA Nos. 500 to 506/Bang/2018 (Para 188 at page 104 of ITAT order) ii. The seized documents are not in the letter head of the appellant nor these documents mention the amount…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Sri. Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 234/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…the assessing officer is perverse for the following reasons: i. None of the persons whose names have been mentioned have been examined. The appellant relies on the following decisions for the above proposition: a. PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd 397 ITR 82 (Page No. 1263 of PB-6) b. CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 70 Taxmann.com 95 (Page No. 1278 and 1279 of PB-6) c. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd) v. ACIT ITA Nos. 500 to 506/Bang/2018 (Para 188 at page 104 of ITAT order) ii. The seized documents are not in the letter head of the appellant nor these documents mention the amount…

Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sagha, Bagalkot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2777/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…the assessing officer is perverse for the following reasons: i. None of the persons whose names have been mentioned have been examined. The appellant relies on the following decisions for the above proposition: a. PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd 397 ITR 82 (Page No. 1263 of PB-6) b. CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 70 Taxmann.com 95 (Page No. 1278 and 1279 of PB-6) c. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd) v. ACIT ITA Nos. 500 to 506/Bang/2018 (Para 188 at page 104 of ITAT order) ii. The seized documents are not in the letter head of the appellant nor these documents mention the amount…

Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2776/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…the assessing officer is perverse for the following reasons: i. None of the persons whose names have been mentioned have been examined. The appellant relies on the following decisions for the above proposition: a. PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd 397 ITR 82 (Page No. 1263 of PB-6) b. CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 70 Taxmann.com 95 (Page No. 1278 and 1279 of PB-6) c. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd) v. ACIT ITA Nos. 500 to 506/Bang/2018 (Para 188 at page 104 of ITAT order) ii. The seized documents are not in the letter head of the appellant nor these documents mention the amount…

Sri Basaveshwar Veershaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2775/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…the assessing officer is perverse for the following reasons: i. None of the persons whose names have been mentioned have been examined. The appellant relies on the following decisions for the above proposition: a. PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd 397 ITR 82 (Page No. 1263 of PB-6) b. CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 70 Taxmann.com 95 (Page No. 1278 and 1279 of PB-6) c. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd) v. ACIT ITA Nos. 500 to 506/Bang/2018 (Para 188 at page 104 of ITAT order) ii. The seized documents are not in the letter head of the appellant nor these documents mention the amount…

M/S. Dharam Impex, Surat vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-4, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 in ITA No

ITA 1580/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.288 To 293/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck 2552 R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.306 To 311/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1579/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Maniprabha Impex Pvt.Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 6219 L अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.312 To 317/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1580/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Dharam Impex Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffd 2692 C अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं./IT(SS)A Nos.288 to 293/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 to 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) M/s Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of C/o 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK 2552 R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आयकर अपीलसं./IT(SS)A Nos.306 to 311/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 to 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./ITA Nos.1579/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Asse…

M/S. Maniprabha Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-4, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 in ITA No

ITA 1579/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.288 To 293/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck 2552 R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.306 To 311/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1579/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Maniprabha Impex Pvt.Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 6219 L अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.312 To 317/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1580/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Dharam Impex Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffd 2692 C अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं./IT(SS)A Nos.288 to 293/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 to 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) M/s Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of C/o 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK 2552 R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आयकर अपीलसं./IT(SS)A Nos.306 to 311/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 to 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./ITA Nos.1579/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Asse…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…crores but the assessing authority has mechanically made the addition of Rs. 7 crores and added back the same amount only on the basis of statement having been made by the assessee which is not permitted." PCIT Vs. Best Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 82/ 159 DTR 257 (Del.) (IIC) The head note of this decision reads as under Search and seizure-Assessment under s. 1534-Scope vis-a-vis incriminating material-Statements of AG make it plain that the surrender of the sum of Rs. 8 crores was only for the assessment year in question and not for each of the six assessment years preceding the year of searc…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Central Circle-3 vs. M/S N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd., Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 54/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…crores but the assessing authority has mechanically made the addition of Rs. 7 crores and added back the same amount only on the basis of statement having been made by the assessee which is not permitted." PCIT Vs. Best Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 82/ 159 DTR 257 (Del.) (IIC) The head note of this decision reads as under Search and seizure-Assessment under s. 1534-Scope vis-a-vis incriminating material-Statements of AG make it plain that the surrender of the sum of Rs. 8 crores was only for the assessment year in question and not for each of the six assessment years preceding the year of searc…

Quickmed Healthcare Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, New Delhi

The appeals stands allowed and the Ld AO shall delete the impugned disallowances

ITA 1699/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: P. Roy Chowdhary Adv with SmtFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…by relying on oral statement of a general nature of a Director, to disallow such expenses on adhoc basis @3% of the expenditure, cannot be justified. Reliance can be placed on Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of PCIT Vs. Best Infrastructure Pvt, 397 ITR 82 where it was held that statement under section 132(4) in itself doesn’t constitute incriminating material. So it can be held that statement under section 132(4) of the Act, alone cannot be considered as incriminating material unless any corroborating incriminating material is relied for making an addition or disallowance. 10. The ld CIT(A) has obs…

Quickmed Healthcare Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, New Delhi

The appeals stands allowed and the Ld AO shall delete the impugned disallowances

ITA 1698/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: P. Roy Chowdhary Adv with SmtFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…by relying on oral statement of a general nature of a Director, to disallow such expenses on adhoc basis @3% of the expenditure, cannot be justified. Reliance can be placed on Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of PCIT Vs. Best Infrastructure Pvt, 397 ITR 82 where it was held that statement under section 132(4) in itself doesn’t constitute incriminating material. So it can be held that statement under section 132(4) of the Act, alone cannot be considered as incriminating material unless any corroborating incriminating material is relied for making an addition or disallowance. 10. The ld CIT(A) has obs…

Quickmed Healthcare Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, New Delhi

The appeals stands allowed and the Ld AO shall delete the impugned disallowances

ITA 1697/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: P. Roy Chowdhary Adv with SmtFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…by relying on oral statement of a general nature of a Director, to disallow such expenses on adhoc basis @3% of the expenditure, cannot be justified. Reliance can be placed on Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of PCIT Vs. Best Infrastructure Pvt, 397 ITR 82 where it was held that statement under section 132(4) in itself doesn’t constitute incriminating material. So it can be held that statement under section 132(4) of the Act, alone cannot be considered as incriminating material unless any corroborating incriminating material is relied for making an addition or disallowance. 10. The ld CIT(A) has obs…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-20 vs. Ms. Kavita Agarwal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/232/2022HC Delhi28 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

…gainst the assessee on record, allowed the appeal and set aside the addition made by the AO. The ITAT has relied upon the judgment of this Court in PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) 432 ITR 384 Del and CIT v. Best Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd reported in (2017) 397 ITR 82, Delhi wherein this Court has held that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act do not themselves constitute as incriminating material in the absence of any corroborative evidence. The ITAT placed reliance on para 35 of CIT v. Best Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as reproduced hereinbelow:- This is a digitally signed Judgement.…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-20 vs. Mr. Shiv Kumar Agarwal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/231/2022HC Delhi28 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

…gainst the assessee on record, allowed the appeal and set aside the addition made by the AO. The ITAT has relied upon the judgment of this Court in PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) 432 ITR 384 Del and CIT v. Best Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd reported in (2017) 397 ITR 82, Delhi wherein this Court has held that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act do not themselves constitute as incriminating material in the absence of any corroborative evidence. The ITAT placed reliance on para 35 of CIT v. Best Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as reproduced hereinbelow:- “35. Turning to the facts of the prese…