PCIT v. Pavitra Realcon (P) Ltd.

340 CTR 225High Court2024#14055 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 131(1A)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 254(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb(1)surrender of incomesection 158bbsection 40a(2)(b)section 131(1a)retracted statementsection 158bsection 254(1)section 158section 132(4)section 148asection 153d

Judgments citing PCIT v. Pavitra Realcon (P) Ltd.

Dy. Commissioner, DCIT Central vs. Cable Corporation India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5126/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Dcit, Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai Cable Corporation Of India Limited, 4Th Floor, Laxmi Building, Room No. 806, Old Cgo Building Vs Pratistha Bhawan M.K. Road, 6, Shoorji Vallabhdas Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai-400001 (Pan:Aaac C2936 J) Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 37

…eleted the entire addition. The ld. CIT(A) clearly held that there was no corroborative evidence to support the statement of Pradip Udeshi. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in PCIT vs Pavitra Realcon (P) Ltd. 340 CTR 225. 9. The ld. AR by referring the provision of section 131(1A) submits that statement of Pradip Udeshi recorded on 28.02.2022 is illegal and bad in law, such statement can be recorded only in pre search proceeding. Moreover, such statement has no evidentiary value. No verification was made by assessing officer form the customers of the assessee t…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Cci Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5097/MUM/2024[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Dcit, Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai Cable Corporation Of India Limited, 4Th Floor, Laxmi Building, Room No. 806, Old Cgo Building Vs Pratistha Bhawan M.K. Road, 6, Shoorji Vallabhdas Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai-400001 (Pan:Aaac C2936 J) Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 37

…eleted the entire addition. The ld. CIT(A) clearly held that there was no corroborative evidence to support the statement of Pradip Udeshi. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in PCIT vs Pavitra Realcon (P) Ltd. 340 CTR 225. 9. The ld. AR by referring the provision of section 131(1A) submits that statement of Pradip Udeshi recorded on 28.02.2022 is illegal and bad in law, such statement can be recorded only in pre search proceeding. Moreover, such statement has no evidentiary value. No verification was made by assessing officer form the customers of the assessee t…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pratistha Bhawan Mumbai vs. Cci Projects Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5034/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Dcit, Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai Cable Corporation Of India Limited, 4Th Floor, Laxmi Building, Room No. 806, Old Cgo Building Vs Pratistha Bhawan M.K. Road, 6, Shoorji Vallabhdas Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai-400001 (Pan:Aaac C2936 J) Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 37

…eleted the entire addition. The ld. CIT(A) clearly held that there was no corroborative evidence to support the statement of Pradip Udeshi. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in PCIT vs Pavitra Realcon (P) Ltd. 340 CTR 225. 9. The ld. AR by referring the provision of section 131(1A) submits that statement of Pradip Udeshi recorded on 28.02.2022 is illegal and bad in law, such statement can be recorded only in pre search proceeding. Moreover, such statement has no evidentiary value. No verification was made by assessing officer form the customers of the assessee t…

Flint Power Tools(P) Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Central, Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2425/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Flint Power Tools (P) Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of B-4, Sushant Lok Phase-1 Income Tax, Central Circle- Gurugram, Haryana, India- Faridabad 1, 122009 Pan: Aadcn0078K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca & Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148ASection 40A(2)(b)

…of oath against oath so that certainly needs some cogent material to hold that statement u/s 132(4) of the Act is more trustworthy. This view is supported by Hon’ble High Court decision in the case of PCIT (Central)-3 vs. PavitraRealcon Pvt. Ltd. reported in 340 CTR 225, wherein Hon’ble Court has held as under: “19. Undisputedly, during the period of search, no incriminating material appears to have been found. However, the Revenue proceeded to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on the pretext of the statements of the Directors of the respondent-assessee companies recorded under Section 132(4) of the A…

Lsl Tools (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, CC-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5644/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…of oath against oath so that certainly needs some cogent material to hold that statement u/s 132(4) of the Act is more trustworthy. This view is supported by Hon’ble High Court decision in the case of PCIT (Central)-3 vs. PavitraRealcon Pvt. Ltd. reported in 340 CTR 225, wherein Hon’ble Court has held as under: “19. Undisputedly, during the period of search, no incriminating material appears to have been found. However, the Revenue proceeded to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on the pretext of the statements of the Directors of the respondent-assessee companies recorded under Section 132(4) of the A…

Lsl Tools (P) Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5643/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…of oath against oath so that certainly needs some cogent material to hold that statement u/s 132(4) of the Act is more trustworthy. This view is supported by Hon’ble High Court decision in the case of PCIT (Central)-3 vs. PavitraRealcon Pvt. Ltd. reported in 340 CTR 225, wherein Hon’ble Court has held as under: “19. Undisputedly, during the period of search, no incriminating material appears to have been found. However, the Revenue proceeded to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on the pretext of the statements of the Directors of the respondent-assessee companies recorded under Section 132(4) of the A…

DCIT, Central Circle- 4(1), Mumbai vs. Evergreen Financial Services, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1625/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Room No. 1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ……………. Appellant V/S Evergreen Financial Services, Kanakia Future City, Cts 101, Behind Dr. L H Hiranandani Hospital, Mumbai-400093. ……………. Respondent Pan : Aabfe 9028 R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 37Section 68

…t even point out any material found during the search which would corroborate the statement of Shri Darshan Doshi recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. 17. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT v/s Pavitra Realcon (P) Ltd., reported in (2024) 340 CTR 225 (Del.), held that statement under section 132(4) of the Act alone, without any other material discovered during the search which would corroborate search statement, do not grant the AO authority to make an assessment. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the aforesaid decision, are reproduced as follows: – “18. The primary g…

PCIT v. Pavitra Realcon (P) Ltd. (340 CTR 225) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax