PCIT v. Trigent Software Ltd.

457 ITR 765Reported decision2023#25786 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2026 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 270A(1)Section 37(1)Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 270a(1)enduring benefitsearch assessmentrevenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 37(1)section 37section 139(1)assistant commissionerincriminating materialundisclosed incomesection 139

Judgments citing PCIT v. Trigent Software Ltd.

TIN TAR RETAIL CORP ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM.OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6487/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

…penditure by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases. a. CIT vs Idea Cellular reported in (2016) t6 taxmann.com 77 b. PCIT vs. Rediff.com India Ltd reported in (2020) 116 taxmann.com 769 c. PCIT vs. Trigent Software Ltd reported in (2023) 457 ITR 765 d. PCIT vs. Tata Chemical Ltd reported in (2024) 469 ITR 256 The Ld. AR prayed for deletion of the enhancement of the addition amount to Rs.47,93,370/- 13. The Ld. DR supported the findings of the revenue authorities and relied upon the assessment order as well as the impugned appellate order. 14. We have carefully considered the rival submission…

TIN TAR RETAIL CORP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6486/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

…penditure by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases. a. CIT vs Idea Cellular reported in (2016) t6 taxmann.com 77 b. PCIT vs. Rediff.com India Ltd reported in (2020) 116 taxmann.com 769 c. PCIT vs. Trigent Software Ltd reported in (2023) 457 ITR 765 d. PCIT vs. Tata Chemical Ltd reported in (2024) 469 ITR 256 The Ld. AR prayed for deletion of the enhancement of the addition amount to Rs.47,93,370/- 13. The Ld. DR supported the findings of the revenue authorities and relied upon the assessment order as well as the impugned appellate order. 14. We have carefully considered the rival submission…

TIN TAR RETAIL CORP ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6485/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

…penditure by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases. a. CIT vs Idea Cellular reported in (2016) t6 taxmann.com 77 b. PCIT vs. Rediff.com India Ltd reported in (2020) 116 taxmann.com 769 c. PCIT vs. Trigent Software Ltd reported in (2023) 457 ITR 765 d. PCIT vs. Tata Chemical Ltd reported in (2024) 469 ITR 256 The Ld. AR prayed for deletion of the enhancement of the addition amount to Rs.47,93,370/- 13. The Ld. DR supported the findings of the revenue authorities and relied upon the assessment order as well as the impugned appellate order. 14. We have carefully considered the rival submission…

PCIT v. Trigent Software Ltd. (457 ITR 765) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax