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 367,541 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.

Mohan Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 2, Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 964/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandramohan Garg Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2 H. No. 905, Sector-15, Faridabad S.O. Faridabad, Haryana Sector-16A Faridabad, Haryana – 121003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahlpg2577N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…tatement recorded u/s 132 of the Act does not constitute P a g e | 8 Mohan Garg (AY: 2015-16) incriminating material in the absence of any other corroborative evidence as held in following judicial pronouncements: • “PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Delhi) affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Delhi Versus M/S Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (6) TMI 971 - SC ORDER, Dated: 14-5-2018 • CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, 2016 (3) TMI 329 - DELHI HIGH COURT, Dated: - 10-3-2016 • PCIT (Central) - 3 Versus Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), SatishDev Jain,…

ITO Ward-58(3), Delhi vs. B.C.Enterprises, Vivek Vihar, Delhi

ITA 4975/DEL/2024[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, SR. DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Best City Infrastructure Ltd. vide order dated 31.05.2016 has held that not providing opportunity of cross examination makes the addition invalid. This order is upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as reported in 397 ITR 82. Similar view is expressed by Hon'ble High Courts in following cases: -PCIT vs. Pavitra Realcom Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.579/2018 (Delhi) -PCIT vs. Esspal International Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.25/2024 (Rajsthan) 9 ITA No.- 4975/Del/2024 B. C. Enterprises. -Dr. M. Malliya vs. ACIT in TCA No.284/11 (Madras). Therefore, not providing the opportunity to cross…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru vs. Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikhana Trust, Mandya

ITA 1207/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69ASection 69C

…are full proof documents, the department should have given cross-examination of the author of these loose sheets which was not provided. As held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Del), statement recorded u/s.132(4) did not by themselves substitute incriminating material and on that basis assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153A and consequent addition made by AO were not justified. Further it was observed that statement u/s. 132(4) during the course of search action not only has to be offered to the assessee, but an opportunit…

M/S. Sri . Adichunchanagiri Shilkshana Trust, Mandya vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 1096/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

…are full proof documents, the department should have given cross-examination of the author of these loose sheets which was not provided. As held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Del), statement recorded u/s.132(4) did not by themselves substitute incriminating material and on that basis assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153A and consequent addition made by AO were not justified. Further it was observed that statement u/s. 132(4) during the course of search action not only has to be Page 45 of 127 ITA Nos.1096 & 1207/Bang/20…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5671/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

…har) 55. CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) 56. CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) 57. Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) 58. CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) 59. PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) 60 Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) 61. It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd.) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Ra…

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1465/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा0 एस. सीथललक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड कमलेश जयंतभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1463 to 1465/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Kailash Chand Maheshwari 223 Kirti Nagar, Near Kamal and Company Tonk Road, Jaipur बनाम Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-02, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर.सं./PAN/GIR No.: AKQPM5593A अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रतियोधी/Respondent निर्णयार्थी की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri S. L.…

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralcircle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1464/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डॉ. एस. सीतलक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1463 to 1465/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Kailash Chand Maheshwari 223 Kirti Nagar, Near Kamal and Company Tonk Road, Jaipur बनाम Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-02, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.: AKQPM5593A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रEstosi / Respondent निर्णयार्थी की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri…

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1463/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 1463 to 1465/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 cuke Kailash Chand Maheshwari DCIT, Vs. 223 Kirti Nagar, Near Kamal and Central Circle-02, Company Tonk Road, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AKQPM5593A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S. L.…

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

ITA 3005/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2999 to 3005/Del/2024 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2017-18) Sushen Mohan Gupta, Vs. ACIT, 10 hailey Road, New Delhi Central Circle-15, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AFEPG7593R Assessee by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Revenue by: Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Shri Shivam Garg, Adv Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department Shri Ruchir Joshi, Adv 21/02/2025 20/05/2025 ORDER PER BENCH 1. The appeals in ITA Nos.2999 to 3005/Del/…

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

ITA 3004/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2999 to 3005/Del/2024 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2017-18) Sushen Mohan Gupta, Vs. ACIT, 10 hailey Road, New Delhi Central Circle-15, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AFEPG7593R Assessee by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Shri Shivam Garg, Adv Revenue by: Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department Shri Ruchir Joshi, Adv Date of Hearing 21/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/05/2025 O R D E R PER BENCH 1. The appeals in ITA Nos. 2999 to 3…

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

ITA 3003/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2999 to 3005/Del/2024 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2017-18) Sushen Mohan Gupta, 10 hailey Road, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AFEPG7593R Assessee by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Shri Shivam Garg, Adv Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department Shri Ruchir Joshi, Adv Date of Hearing 21/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/05/2025 ORDER PER BENCH 1. The appeals in ITA Nos.2999 to 3005/Del/…

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

ITA 3002/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2999 to 3005/Del/2024 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2017-18) Sushen Mohan Gupta, Vs. ACIT, 10 hailey Road, New Delhi Central Circle-15, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AFEPG7593R Assessee by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Shri Shivam Garg, Adv Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department Shri Ruchir Joshi, Adv Date of Hearing 21/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/05/2025 O R D E R PER BENCH 1. The appeals in ITA Nos.2999 to 3005/…

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

ITA 3001/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2999 to 3005/Del/2024 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2017-18) Sushen Mohan Gupta, 10 hailey Road, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AFEPG7593R Assessee by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Shri Shivam Garg, Adv Revenue by: Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department Shri Ruchir Joshi, Adv Date of Hearing 21/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/05/2025 ORDER PER BENCH 1. The appeals in ITA Nos.2999 to 3005/Del/…

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

ITA 3000/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2999 to 3005/Del/2024 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2017-18) Sushen Mohan Gupta, 10 hailey Road, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AFEPG7593R Assessee by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Shri Shivam Garg, Adv Revenue by: Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department Shri Ruchir Joshi, Adv Date of Hearing 21/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/05/2025 ORDER PER BENCH 1. The appeals in ITA Nos.2999 to 3005/Del/…

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -15, Delhi

ITA 2999/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2999 to 3005/Del/2024 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2017-18) Sushen Mohan Gupta, Vs. ACIT, 10 hailey Road, New Delhi Central Circle-15, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AFEPG7593R Assessee by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Shri Shivam Garg, Adv Revenue by: Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department Shri Ruchir Joshi, Adv Date of Hearing 21/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/05/2025 O R D E R PER BENCH 1. The appeals in ITA Nos. 2999 to 3…

DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Manish Uppal, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3061/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…HOUGH STATEMENT RELIED BY AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAKES IT FATAL TO REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS • 62 Taxmann.com 3 dated 02.09.2015 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 20 DCIT v. Manish Uppal • PCIT vs Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 397 ITR 82 • 322 ITR 396 dated 16.02.2010 CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta (Delhi HC). ON MERITS: That further, on merits reliance is placed on the findings of learned CIT (A) at pages 23 to 25 of the order, wherein, he has held that the management of company M/s Saransh Developers Pvt. Ltd. was transferred by the assessee and his father by liquidating their shareholdi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 164/AGR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…he Ld. AR also referred to various other judicial decisions including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12-02-2021); the decision in PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, (290 CTR 263) and the decision in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia(333 ITR 315) holding the same consistent view. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. All these decisions support the argument of Ld. AR that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned addition based on alleged bogus pu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 163/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…he Ld. AR also referred to various other judicial decisions including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12-02-2021); the decision in PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, (290 CTR 263) and the decision in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia(333 ITR 315) holding the same consistent view. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. All these decisions support the argument of Ld. AR that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned addition based on alleged bogus pu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 161/AGR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…he Ld. AR also referred to various other judicial decisions including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12-02-2021); the decision in PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, (290 CTR 263) and the decision in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia(333 ITR 315) holding the same consistent view. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. All these decisions support the argument of Ld. AR that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned addition based on alleged bogus pu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 160/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…he Ld. AR also referred to various other judicial decisions including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12-02-2021); the decision in PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision in CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, (290 CTR 263) and the decision in CIT vs. Raj Pal Bhatia(333 ITR 315) holding the same consistent view. The copies of the decisions have been placed on record. All these decisions support the argument of Ld. AR that in the absence of any incriminating material, impugned addition based on alleged bogus pu…