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

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

…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. Ms. Suman Agarwal

Appeal is dismissed

…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:- 2022:DHC:2945-DB ITA 167/2022 Page 5…

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

Appeal is dismissed

…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…

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

Appeal is dismissed

…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:- 2022:DHC:2947-DB ITA 232/2022 Page 5…

Agm Properties P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

…entry from the assessee. v) Reliance was placed on the following judgements:- (a) Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526 (Del) (b) SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. 398 ITR 584 (Bom) (c) Deepak Kumar Agarwal and others 398 ITR 586 (Bom) (D) Best Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) (e) Dipak Jashvantalal Panchal 397 ITR 153 (Guj) (f) Chintels India Ltd. 397 ITR 416 (Del) (g) Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del) vi) There was no search in the case of the assessee and in the absence of search also there cannot be any 153A assessment. It assessment itself be quashed. 3.1 In remand report obtained by the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. AO st…

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Sanjivani Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usacit Vs. Sanjivani Industries Pvt. Central Circle -30 Ltd. New Delhi 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi – 110 008 Pan No. Aafcs 8669 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ded by the assessee himself and was not based on the statement of third party and thus the facts are distinguishable. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 397 ITR 82 wherein it is held that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act does not by itself constitute incriminating material. He thereafter also stated that against the decision of Tribunal in the case of Kuber Khadyan Pvt. Ltd. no appeal has been preferred by Revenue. He thereafter reiterated that the facts in the case of assessee and that of Kuber Khad…