Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

367 ITR 112High Court2014#393 most cited

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

For assessments under Section 153C, a specific satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the person searched, recorded prior to initiating proceedings, is a jurisdictional prerequisite, rendering its absence void. The approval function under Section 153D is administrative and does not require elaborate reasoning.

225

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT · Section 153C satisfaction note · Section 153D approval · search assessment jurisdiction · 153C proceedings void · Assessing Officer of searched person · administrative approval · no elaborate reasoning

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 153ASection 132Section 131Section 69ASection 68Section 143(3)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4a)(i)section 292c(1)(i)section 6(3)(ii)section 292c(1)section 153(c)(1)section 6(3)section 4(1)section 158bdsection 153(c)section 292csection 153c(1)section 292

Judgments citing Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), PUNE vs. RAMESH PANNALAL RANKA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 2944/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.31 & 32/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ramesh Pannalal Ranka Dcit, Central Circle 2(2), Plot No.42, Premnagar Society, Vs. Pune Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aazpr9440C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle 2(2), Ramesh Pannalal Ranka Pune Vs. Plot No.42, Premnagar Society, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aazpr9440C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Ca Sampada Ingale Department By : Shri Amit Bobde, Cit Date Of Hearing : 24-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2026

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and CA Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…ctly complied with and failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to follow such jurisdictional conditions renders the assessment invalid. 14. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT reported in 367 ITR 112 (Del) he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the preconditions for invoking search related provisions are jurisdictional and not procedural. 8 IT(SS)A Nos.31 & 32/PUN/2025 15. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla reported in 61 taxmann.com 412 (Del) he…

JAYAKRISHNA NANDAMURI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1793/HYD/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1793/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1996-97) Shri Jayakrishna Vs. Dy. Cit Nandamuri Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaxpn3135E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A. Harish राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Advocate A. HarishFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 69B

…d. In support of their contention, the Ld. AR relied on the following judicial precedents: (a) 454 ITR 595 (SC) D.N. Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another (b) 419 ITR 132 (Guj) – Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Himanshu Chandulal Patel (c) 367 ITR 112 (Delhi) -Pepsi Foods P. Ltd Vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax (d) 290 ITR 245 (Delhi) –CIT Vs. Lalit Bhasin (e) 338 ITR 485 -CIT Vs. Puneet Sabharwal (f) KP Varghese Case Hon'ble Supreme Court in 131 ITR 597 (g) ITA No. 55/Hyd/2015 –G Mahesh Babu Vs. DCIT. 8. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied on the orde…

KAVITA GUPTA,EAST DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-31, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1643/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2020-21]

Section 115BSection 153CSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2020-21] Kavita Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income 38, Shanker Vihar, Tax, Central Circle-31, Delhi-110092 ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi-110055 PAN :AAHPG3531D (Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Hitendra Nahata, Advocate and Shri Alok Kumar Rout, Advocate Respondent by Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT9DR) Date of Hearing 11.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM: Appeal in this case has been fil…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1596/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that it is not a quasi-judicial order and elaborate reasoning in the approval under section 153D of the Act does not by itself vitiate assessment. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del) has held that the function of the approving authority under section 153D of the Act is administrative to ensure that assessments framed by subordinate officers are not arbitrary. The Kailash Gahlot Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) (2008) 300 ITR 403 has held that where approval is statutory but administrative, it nee…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are

ITA 1536/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that it is not a quasi-judicial order and elaborate reasoning in the approval under section 153D of the Act does not by itself vitiate assessment. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del) has held that the function of the approving authority under section 153D of the Act is administrative to ensure that assessments framed by subordinate officers are not arbitrary. The Kailash Gahlot Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) (2008) 300 ITR 403 has held that where approval is statutory but administrative, it nee…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1529/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that it is not a quasi-judicial order and elaborate reasoning in the approval under section 153D of the Act does not by itself vitiate assessment. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del) has held that the function of the approving authority under section 153D of the Act is administrative to ensure that assessments framed by subordinate officers are not arbitrary. The Kailash Gahlot Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) (2008) 300 ITR 403 has held that where approval is statutory but administrative, it nee…

PERIYASAMY ANBUNATHAN,KARUR vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1489/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that it is not a quasi-judicial order and elaborate reasoning in the approval under section 153D of the Act does not by itself vitiate assessment. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del) has held that the function of the approving authority under section 153D of the Act is administrative to ensure that assessments framed by subordinate officers are not arbitrary. The Kailash Gahlot Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) (2008) 300 ITR 403 has held that where approval is statutory but administrative, it nee…

PERIASAMY ANBUNATHAN,KARUR vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1488/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that it is not a quasi-judicial order and elaborate reasoning in the approval under section 153D of the Act does not by itself vitiate assessment. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del) has held that the function of the approving authority under section 153D of the Act is administrative to ensure that assessments framed by subordinate officers are not arbitrary. The Kailash Gahlot Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) (2008) 300 ITR 403 has held that where approval is statutory but administrative, it nee…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY RAJASEHAR, PERAMBALUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3336/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 69

…/s.153C of the Act is a sine qua non for the assumption of jurisdiction and must be recorded distinctly for each year. A failure to do so, strikes at the root of the assessment. Moreover, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [(2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del)] and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwears [(2014) 362 ITR 373 (SC)] have emphasized that the AO must demonstrate a live and direct nexus between the seized material and the relevant assessment year in respect :-16-: I.T.A. No.:3336 /Chny/2024 & C.O.No.29/Chny/2025 of the “other person,” which cannot be presumed in the absence…

KAILASH GAHLOT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 3431/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3431/Del./2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Kailash Gahlot Deputy Commissioner Of C-6/6172, Vasant Kunj, Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle-4, Pan: Aajpg2849N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Sh. Anmol Jha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 153DSection 69C

…Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that it is not a quasi-judicial order and elaborate reasoning in the approval under section 153D of the Act does not by itself vitiate assessment. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del) has held that the function of the approving authority under section 153D of the Act is administrative to ensure that assessments framed by subordinate officers are not arbitrary. The 21 Kailash Gahlot Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) (2008) 300 ITR 403 has held that where approval is statutory but administrative, it…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 500/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…t violation natural justice it must demonstrate wht wrong has been done by AO. 8. Section 292C & Third Party Documents • If document belongs to a third party, assessee must establish it "belongs to" other. Citations: • Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del) 9. Summary of Key Supporting Judgments Issue Citation Ownership by possession Chuharmal v. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) Burden to explain seized cash Shashi Garg v. CIT (2007) 162 Taxman 171 (Del) Cryptic documents admissible Dayawanti v. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 308 (Del) Dumb documents rebuttable CIT v. Ajay Gupta (2019) 101 taxmann.com…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 498/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…ation natural justice it must demonstrate\nwht wrong has been done by AO.\n\n8. Section 292C & Third Party Documents\n• If document belongs to a third party, assessee must establish it \"belongs\nto\" other.\nCitations:\n• Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del)\n\n9. Summary of Key Supporting Judgments\nIssue Citation\nOwnership by possession Chuharmal v. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC)\nBurden to explain seized cash Shashi Garg v. CIT (2007) 162 Taxman 171 (Del)\nCryptic documents admissible Dayawanti v. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 308\n(Del)\nDumb documents rebuttable CIT v. Ajay Gupta (2019) 101 taxm…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 497/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…t violation natural justice it must demonstrate wht wrong has been done by AO. 8. Section 292C & Third Party Documents • If document belongs to a third party, assessee must establish it "belongs to" other. Citations: • Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del) 9. Summary of Key Supporting Judgments Issue Citation Ownership by possession Chuharmal v. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) Burden to explain seized cash Shashi Garg v. CIT (2007) 162 Taxman 171 (Del) Cryptic documents admissible Dayawanti v. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 308 (Del) Dumb documents rebuttable CIT v. Ajay Gupta (2019) 101 taxmann.com…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 496/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…t violation natural justice it must demonstrate wht wrong has been done by AO. 8. Section 292C & Third Party Documents • If document belongs to a third party, assessee must establish it "belongs to" other. Citations: • Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del) 9. Summary of Key Supporting Judgments Issue Citation Ownership by possession Chuharmal v. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) Burden to explain seized cash Shashi Garg v. CIT (2007) 162 Taxman 171 (Del) Cryptic documents admissible Dayawanti v. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 308 (Del) Dumb documents rebuttable CIT v. Ajay Gupta (2019) 101 taxmann.com…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 493/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…t violation natural justice it must demonstrate wht wrong has been done by AO. 8. Section 292C & Third Party Documents • If document belongs to a third party, assessee must establish it "belongs to" other. Citations: • Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del) 9. Summary of Key Supporting Judgments Issue Citation Ownership by possession Chuharmal v. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) Burden to explain seized cash Shashi Garg v. CIT (2007) 162 Taxman 171 (Del) Cryptic documents admissible Dayawanti v. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 308 (Del) Dumb documents rebuttable CIT v. Ajay Gupta (2019) 101 taxmann.com…

SHANTHA ALIAS SHANTHAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

ITA 465/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 153C

…h a copy of the satisfaction note of the AO of the search person or the seized material, which are essential for a fair assessment. As per settled legal principles, including rulings in CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 6 SCC 444, Pepsi Foods Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT 367 ITR 112, and Ganpati Fincap Services Pvt Ltd vs. CIT 395 ITR 692, the satisfaction note must be specific, not mechanical, and must precede the issuance of notice under section 153C of the Act. The failure to record and provide such satisfaction invalidates the jurisdiction assumed under section 153C of the Act. 18. Furthermore, the Id. AR also argued tha…

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 457/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

…d u/s.153C of the Act is a sine qua non for the assumption of jurisdiction and must be recorded distinctly for each year. A failure to do so strikes at the root of the assessment. Moreover, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [(2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del)] and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwears [(2014) 362 ITR 373 (SC)] have emphasized that the AO must demonstrate a live and direct nexus between the seized material and the relevant assessment year in respect of the “other person,” which cannot be presumed in the absence of year-specific satisfaction. 16. In the present case, th…

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 456/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

…d u/s.153C of the Act is a sine qua non for the assumption of jurisdiction and must be recorded distinctly for each year. A failure to do so strikes at the root of the assessment. Moreover, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [(2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del)] and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwears [(2014) 362 ITR 373 (SC)] have emphasized that the AO must demonstrate a live and direct nexus between the seized material and the relevant assessment year in respect of the “other person,” which cannot be presumed in the absence of year-specific satisfaction. 16. In the present case, th…

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 455/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

…d u/s.153C of the Act is a sine qua non for the assumption of jurisdiction and must be recorded distinctly for each year. A failure to do so strikes at the root of the assessment. Moreover, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [(2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del)] and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwears [(2014) 362 ITR 373 (SC)] have emphasized that the AO must demonstrate a live and direct nexus between the seized material and the relevant assessment year in respect of the “other person,” which cannot be presumed in the absence of year-specific satisfaction. 16. In the present case, th…

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 454/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

…d u/s.153C of the Act is a sine qua non for the assumption of jurisdiction and must be recorded distinctly for each year. A failure to do so strikes at the root of the assessment. Moreover, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [(2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del)] and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwears [(2014) 362 ITR 373 (SC)] have emphasized that the AO must demonstrate a live and direct nexus between the seized material and the relevant assessment year in respect of the “other person,” which cannot be presumed in the absence of year-specific satisfaction. 16. In the present case, th…

Showing 1–20 of 225 · Page 1 of 12

...
Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (367 ITR 112) — Cited in 225 Judgments | BharatTax