Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

151 ITD 399Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#9413 most cited

What is Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

The initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act can be supported based on the relationship between individuals and their control over group accounts, even when land development agreements are involved.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2019.

Also referred to as

Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT · 151 ITD 399 · Section 153C · initiation of proceedings · group accounts · land development agreement · search and seizure

Judgments citing Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

Sudhir Kumar.D.Shah - HUF, Hyderabad vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

ITA 1872/HYD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ITR 346] (Karnataka); vii. CIT Vs. Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd., [232 taxman 268] (AP); viii. Pr.CIT Vs. Rajeev Behi [398 ITR 615] (Delhi); ix. Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [231 taxman 58] (Delhi); x. Avinash Estates & Resorts Ltd., Vs. DCIT [151 ITD 399]; 6.3. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act. Ld.DR submitted that Shri Sunil D.Shah and Shri Sudhir D.Shah are brothers and Shri Apoorva Shah is son of Shri Sunil Shah, who is the nephew of the assessee. Both the brothers have acquired large track of land at Vattinagulapalli village and entered in to…

Sudhir Kumar.D.Shah - HUF, Hyderabad vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

ITA 1871/HYD/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Oct 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ITR 346] (Karnataka); vii. CIT Vs. Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd., [232 taxman 268] (AP); viii. Pr.CIT Vs. Rajeev Behi [398 ITR 615] (Delhi); ix. Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [231 taxman 58] (Delhi); x. Avinash Estates & Resorts Ltd., Vs. DCIT [151 ITD 399]; 6.3. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act. Ld.DR submitted that Shri Sunil D.Shah and Shri Sudhir D.Shah are brothers and Shri Apoorva Shah is son of Shri Sunil Shah, who is the nephew of the assessee. Both the brothers have acquired large track of land at Vattinagulapalli village and entered in to…

Sudhir Kumar.D.Shah - HUF, Hyderabad vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

ITA 1877/HYD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ITR 346] (Karnataka); vii. CIT Vs. Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd., [232 taxman 268] (AP); viii. Pr.CIT Vs. Rajeev Behi [398 ITR 615] (Delhi); ix. Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [231 taxman 58] (Delhi); x. Avinash Estates & Resorts Ltd., Vs. DCIT [151 ITD 399]; 6.3. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act. Ld.DR submitted that Shri Sunil D.Shah and Shri Sudhir D.Shah are brothers and Shri Apoorva Shah is son of Shri Sunil Shah, who is the nephew of the assessee. Both the brothers have acquired large track of land at Vattinagulapalli village and entered in to…

Sudhir Kumar.D.Shah - HUF, Hyderabad vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

ITA 1876/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ITR 346] (Karnataka); vii. CIT Vs. Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd., [232 taxman 268] (AP); viii. Pr.CIT Vs. Rajeev Behi [398 ITR 615] (Delhi); ix. Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [231 taxman 58] (Delhi); x. Avinash Estates & Resorts Ltd., Vs. DCIT [151 ITD 399]; 6.3. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act. Ld.DR submitted that Shri Sunil D.Shah and Shri Sudhir D.Shah are brothers and Shri Apoorva Shah is son of Shri Sunil Shah, who is the nephew of the assessee. Both the brothers have acquired large track of land at Vattinagulapalli village and entered in to…

Sudhir Kumar.D.Shah - HUF, Hyderabad vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

ITA 1875/HYD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ITR 346] (Karnataka); vii. CIT Vs. Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd., [232 taxman 268] (AP); viii. Pr.CIT Vs. Rajeev Behi [398 ITR 615] (Delhi); ix. Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [231 taxman 58] (Delhi); x. Avinash Estates & Resorts Ltd., Vs. DCIT [151 ITD 399]; 6.3. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act. Ld.DR submitted that Shri Sunil D.Shah and Shri Sudhir D.Shah are brothers and Shri Apoorva Shah is son of Shri Sunil Shah, who is the nephew of the assessee. Both the brothers have acquired large track of land at Vattinagulapalli village and entered in to…

Sudhir Kumar.D.Shah - HUF, Hyderabad vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

ITA 1874/HYD/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ITR 346] (Karnataka); vii. CIT Vs. Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd., [232 taxman 268] (AP); viii. Pr.CIT Vs. Rajeev Behi [398 ITR 615] (Delhi); ix. Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [231 taxman 58] (Delhi); x. Avinash Estates & Resorts Ltd., Vs. DCIT [151 ITD 399]; 6.3. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act. Ld.DR submitted that Shri Sunil D.Shah and Shri Sudhir D.Shah are brothers and Shri Apoorva Shah is son of Shri Sunil Shah, who is the nephew of the assessee. Both the brothers have acquired large track of land at Vattinagulapalli village and entered in to…

Sudhir Kumar.D.Shah - HUF, Hyderabad vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

ITA 1873/HYD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ITR 346] (Karnataka); vii. CIT Vs. Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd., [232 taxman 268] (AP); viii. Pr.CIT Vs. Rajeev Behi [398 ITR 615] (Delhi); ix. Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [231 taxman 58] (Delhi); x. Avinash Estates & Resorts Ltd., Vs. DCIT [151 ITD 399]; 6.3. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act. Ld.DR submitted that Shri Sunil D.Shah and Shri Sudhir D.Shah are brothers and Shri Apoorva Shah is son of Shri Sunil Shah, who is the nephew of the assessee. Both the brothers have acquired large track of land at Vattinagulapalli village and entered in to…

Krez Hotel & Realty Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jtcit (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4577/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meean
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

…view of the same strict compliance as to the provisions of the sub-section is to be followed. The learned A.R. relied on a series of decisions in defence of his argument: - i. CIT vs. MN Rajaraman 5 ITR 62 ITAT Chennai ii. Avinesh Estate and Resorts vs. DCIT 151 ITD 399 (Vizag) iii. CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. 388 ITR 574 (Cal) M/s. Krez Hotel & Realty Ltd. iv. DSL Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 1334/Del/2012 v. Beejay Security & Finance Ltd. ITA No. 4859/Mum/2009 The learned A.R. prayed before the Bench that the issue of non-recording of satisfaction is covered in favour of the assessee by the rat…

Krez Hotel & Realty Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jtcit (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4576/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meean
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

…view of the same strict compliance as to the provisions of the sub-section is to be followed. The learned A.R. relied on a series of decisions in defence of his argument: - i. CIT vs. MN Rajaraman 5 ITR 62 ITAT Chennai ii. Avinesh Estate and Resorts vs. DCIT 151 ITD 399 (Vizag) iii. CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. 388 ITR 574 (Cal) M/s. Krez Hotel & Realty Ltd. iv. DSL Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 1334/Del/2012 v. Beejay Security & Finance Ltd. ITA No. 4859/Mum/2009 The learned A.R. prayed before the Bench that the issue of non-recording of satisfaction is covered in favour of the assessee by the rat…

Krez Hotel & Realty Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jtcit (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4575/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meean
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

…view of the same strict compliance as to the provisions of the sub-section is to be followed. The learned A.R. relied on a series of decisions in defence of his argument: - i. CIT vs. MN Rajaraman 5 ITR 62 ITAT Chennai ii. Avinesh Estate and Resorts vs. DCIT 151 ITD 399 (Vizag) iii. CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. 388 ITR 574 (Cal) M/s. Krez Hotel & Realty Ltd. iv. DSL Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 1334/Del/2012 v. Beejay Security & Finance Ltd. ITA No. 4859/Mum/2009 The learned A.R. prayed before the Bench that the issue of non-recording of satisfaction is covered in favour of the assessee by the rat…

Krez Hotel & Realty Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jtcit (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4574/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meean
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

…view of the same strict compliance as to the provisions of the sub-section is to be followed. The learned A.R. relied on a series of decisions in defence of his argument: - i. CIT vs. MN Rajaraman 5 ITR 62 ITAT Chennai ii. Avinesh Estate and Resorts vs. DCIT 151 ITD 399 (Vizag) iii. CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. 388 ITR 574 (Cal) M/s. Krez Hotel & Realty Ltd. iv. DSL Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 1334/Del/2012 v. Beejay Security & Finance Ltd. ITA No. 4859/Mum/2009 The learned A.R. prayed before the Bench that the issue of non-recording of satisfaction is covered in favour of the assessee by the rat…

Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (151 ITD 399) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax