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

367 ITR 112High Court2014#395 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 367,368 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

Jivraj P. Surani, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4541/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…, the assessee submits that the above additional grounds of appeal may be admitted and adjudicated. 5.2 Before us, regarding the issue of validity of notice u/s 153C, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relied on the decision in Pepsi Foods P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Delhi), Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi), CIT v. M/s Arpit Land P. Ltd. (ITA No. 83 of 2014) & CIT v. M/s Ambit Realty Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 150 of 2014) (Bombay), ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. ACIT 394 ITR 569 (Delhi), CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society 378 ITR 84 (Bombay) and CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Ed…

Suresh V. Kukadiya, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4523/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…, the assessee submits that the above additional grounds of appeal may be admitted and adjudicated. 5.2 Before us, regarding the issue of validity of notice u/s 153C, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relied on the decision in Pepsi Foods P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Delhi), Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi), CIT v. M/s Arpit Land P. Ltd. (ITA No. 83 of 2014) & CIT v. M/s Ambit Realty Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 150 of 2014) (Bombay), ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. ACIT 394 ITR 569 (Delhi), CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society 378 ITR 84 (Bombay) and CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Ed…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Gulshan Kumar Sethi, Delhi

ITA 5220/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 153CSection 56

…searched person has not recorded his satisfaction that those documents do not belong to the searched person. For such proposition, the assessee had placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [367 ITR 112] and Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [370 ITR 295]. 7. After carefully examining the facts of the case, the case made out by the ACIT, Circle-59(1) New Delhi vide assessment order in the light of the seized documents forwarded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the assessee's submissions in the light of the decisi…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Kartik Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1682/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. R.KFor Respondent: Smt. Puja Jindal, CIT(DR)Smt. Rano
Section 132Section 153Section 153C

…“belonging to" others are not sustainable in terms of the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PepsiCo India Holdings (P.) Ltd v ACIT & Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd v ACIT (supra), CIT vs RRJ Securities 62 taxmann.com 39, CIT vs Nikki Drugs 64 taxmann.com, 367 ITR 112, 270 CTR 467. The above principles have been followed in many other decisions by the jurisdictional ITAT of Delhi - Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aakash Arogya Mindir (P.) Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 293 (Delhi - Trib.); Tanvir Collections (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-21, New Delhi [2015] 54 taxman…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt Urmila Chandulal Patel, New Delhi

Accordingly all the appeals of the revenue with respect to all these assesses are dismissed

ITA 1459/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyacit, Vs. Rohan Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Asjpp8428L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Himanshu Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Actpp8270C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Praduman Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Ajhpp2206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Krish Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aqvpp2875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Urmila Chandulal Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aeipp1395R

For Appellant: Shri Raj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…nce, the proceedings under section 153C of the income tax act, 1961 is initiated in the case of Mrs. Urmiladevi Chimanlal Patel. 12. The identical satisfaction note was also recorded in case of all other assesses. As held by the honourable Delhi High Court in 367 ITR 112 in Pepsi foods private limited vs ACIT that The satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person. The above decision has also considered the decision of the honourable Delhi High C…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Krish Patel, New Delhi

Accordingly all the appeals of the revenue with respect to all these assesses are dismissed

ITA 1458/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyacit, Vs. Rohan Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Asjpp8428L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Himanshu Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Actpp8270C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Praduman Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Ajhpp2206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Krish Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aqvpp2875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Urmila Chandulal Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aeipp1395R

For Appellant: Shri Raj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…nce, the proceedings under section 153C of the income tax act, 1961 is initiated in the case of Mrs. Urmiladevi Chimanlal Patel. 12. The identical satisfaction note was also recorded in case of all other assesses. As held by the honourable Delhi High Court in 367 ITR 112 in Pepsi foods private limited vs ACIT that The satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person. The above decision has also considered the decision of the honourable Delhi High C…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Praduman Patel, New Delhi

Accordingly all the appeals of the revenue with respect to all these assesses are dismissed

ITA 1457/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyacit, Vs. Rohan Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Asjpp8428L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Himanshu Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Actpp8270C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Praduman Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Ajhpp2206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Krish Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aqvpp2875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Urmila Chandulal Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aeipp1395R

For Appellant: Shri Raj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…nce, the proceedings under section 153C of the income tax act, 1961 is initiated in the case of Mrs. Urmiladevi Chimanlal Patel. 12. The identical satisfaction note was also recorded in case of all other assesses. As held by the honourable Delhi High Court in 367 ITR 112 in Pepsi foods private limited vs ACIT that The satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person. The above decision has also considered the decision of the honourable Delhi High C…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Himanshu Patel, New Delhi

Accordingly all the appeals of the revenue with respect to all these assesses are dismissed

ITA 1456/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyacit, Vs. Rohan Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Asjpp8428L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Himanshu Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Actpp8270C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Praduman Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Ajhpp2206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Krish Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aqvpp2875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Urmila Chandulal Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aeipp1395R

For Appellant: Shri Raj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…nce, the proceedings under section 153C of the income tax act, 1961 is initiated in the case of Mrs. Urmiladevi Chimanlal Patel. 12. The identical satisfaction note was also recorded in case of all other assesses. As held by the honourable Delhi High Court in 367 ITR 112 in Pepsi foods private limited vs ACIT that The satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person. The above decision has also considered the decision of the honourable Delhi High C…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Rohan Patel, New Delhi

Accordingly all the appeals of the revenue with respect to all these assesses are dismissed

ITA 1455/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyacit, Vs. Rohan Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Asjpp8428L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Himanshu Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Actpp8270C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Praduman Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Ajhpp2206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Krish Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aqvpp2875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Urmila Chandulal Patel, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 10, Executive Club Road, Chandanholla Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aeipp1395R

For Appellant: Shri Raj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 153Section 153C

…nce, the proceedings under section 153C of the income tax act, 1961 is initiated in the case of Mrs. Urmiladevi Chimanlal Patel. 12. The identical satisfaction note was also recorded in case of all other assesses. As held by the honourable Delhi High Court in 367 ITR 112 in Pepsi foods private limited vs ACIT that The satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person. The above decision has also considered the decision of the honourable Delhi High C…

Crystal Plywood Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer

ITA 1737/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1737/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Crystal Plywood Pvt. Ltd., 1220/47, E-Ward, Rajarampuri, First Lane, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur – 416001 …. Pan: Aaacc7874M Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central), …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Avadesh Kumar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…SVP Group was not required to record such satisfaction as both the Assessee and the SVP Group were being assessed by the same officer. This contention was rejected by the ITAT by following the decision of this Court in Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd v. Asstt CIT [2014] 367 ITR 112/52 taxmann.com 220/[2015] 231 Taxman 58. The Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Gopi Apartments [2014] 365 ITR 411/46 taxmann.com 280 has also held that even in cases where the assessing officer of the person searched and the assessee who is sought to be assessed under Section 153C is the same, the assessing officer is required to record…

M/S. Lal Sai Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5486/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…annot be held that same belongs to the assessee. In support of his contention that kind of document cannot clothe the AO with the jurisdiction u/s 153C, he relied following judgments: - Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (a) [2014] 367 ITR 112 -; which has also been affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No. 4659/2015 dated 04.12.2017. Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V. N. S. Software in ITA (b) No. 791/2017 dated 18.04.2018 – (c) Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 680 – (d) Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Hold…

M/S. Lal Sai Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5485/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…annot be held that same belongs to the assessee. In support of his contention that kind of document cannot clothe the AO with the jurisdiction u/s 153C, he relied following judgments: - Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (a) [2014] 367 ITR 112 -; which has also been affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No. 4659/2015 dated 04.12.2017. Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V. N. S. Software in ITA (b) No. 791/2017 dated 18.04.2018 – (c) Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 680 – (d) Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Hold…

M/S. Lal Sai Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5484/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…annot be held that same belongs to the assessee. In support of his contention that kind of document cannot clothe the AO with the jurisdiction u/s 153C, he relied following judgments: - Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (a) [2014] 367 ITR 112 -; which has also been affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No. 4659/2015 dated 04.12.2017. Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V. N. S. Software in ITA (b) No. 791/2017 dated 18.04.2018 – (c) Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 680 – (d) Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Hold…

Kalavati Surani, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4530/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Kalavati Surani Acit-Cc 15 & 16, B-2005, Chandanbala Chs Mumbai. Vs. Rr Thakkar Marg, Walkeshwar Mumbai-400006 Pan No. Aznps1185J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 250

…, the assessee submits that the above additional grounds of appeal may be admitted and adjudicated. 5.2 Before us, regarding the issue of validity of notice u/s 153C, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relied on the decision in Pepsi Foods P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Delhi), Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. v. ACIT Mrs. Kalavati Surani 5 (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi), CIT v. M/s Arpit Land P. Ltd. (ITA No. 83 of 2014) & CIT v. M/s Ambit Realty Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 150 of 2014) (Bombay), ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. ACIT 394 ITR 569 (Delhi), CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society 378 ITR 84 (Bombay) and CIT…

M/S. M.L. Singhi & Associates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 3337/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3335/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 68

…CIT vs. Vinita Chaurasia, 394 ITR 758 (Del.) (ii). CIT vs. Arpit Land (P) Ltd., 393 ITR 276 (Bom) (iii). Canyon Financial Services Ltd. vs. ITO, 399 ITR 202 (Del) (iv). CIT vs. Renu Construction (P) Ltd., 399 ITR 262 (Del.) (v). Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 367 ITR 112 (Del), SLP dismissed by Supreme Court in Appeal © No. 4659/2015 dated 04.12.2017 M. L. Singhi & Associates (P) Ltd. (vi). M/s. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 370 ITR 295 (Del) (vii). CIT vs. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd., 397 ITR 246 (Bom) 4. It was next contended that none of the documents referred to by the Assessing Officer are the materia…

M/S. M.L. Singhi & Associates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 3336/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3335/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 68

…CIT vs. Vinita Chaurasia, 394 ITR 758 (Del.) (ii). CIT vs. Arpit Land (P) Ltd., 393 ITR 276 (Bom) (iii). Canyon Financial Services Ltd. vs. ITO, 399 ITR 202 (Del) (iv). CIT vs. Renu Construction (P) Ltd., 399 ITR 262 (Del.) (v). Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 367 ITR 112 (Del), SLP dismissed by Supreme Court in Appeal © No. 4659/2015 dated 04.12.2017 M. L. Singhi & Associates (P) Ltd. (vi). M/s. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 370 ITR 295 (Del) (vii). CIT vs. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd., 397 ITR 246 (Bom) 4. It was next contended that none of the documents referred to by the Assessing Officer are the materia…

M/S. M.L. Singhi & Associates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 3335/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3335/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 68

…CIT vs. Vinita Chaurasia, 394 ITR 758 (Del.) (ii). CIT vs. Arpit Land (P) Ltd., 393 ITR 276 (Bom) (iii). Canyon Financial Services Ltd. vs. ITO, 399 ITR 202 (Del) (iv). CIT vs. Renu Construction (P) Ltd., 399 ITR 262 (Del.) (v). Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 367 ITR 112 (Del), SLP dismissed by Supreme Court in Appeal © No. 4659/2015 dated 04.12.2017 M. L. Singhi & Associates (P) Ltd. (vi). M/s. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 370 ITR 295 (Del) (vii). CIT vs. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd., 397 ITR 246 (Bom) 4. It was next contended that none of the documents referred to by the Assessing Officer are the materia…

M/S. Eon Auto Industires (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3179/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rachna Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…ourt after referring to the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of SSP Aviation Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2012) 346 ITR 177 (Del); In Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del) and catena of other judgments of other High Courts; held that for the purpose of determining abated and unabated assessment and reckoning of period of six assessment years prior to the year of search, reference date in terms of provisions of section 153C can be taken as date of recording of satisfaction under section 153C. The relevant obse…

M/S. Rite Pac Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1796/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jainay: 2007-08 Rite Pac Industries P.Ltd. Dy.Cit, 23/05, Shakti Nagar Vs. Central Circle 05 New Delhi 110 007 New Delhi Pan: Aaccr 6816 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153CSection 68

…the notice u/s153C is invalid and the assessment framed consequent thereto, deserves to be cancelled. In support of his contention the Ld.Counsel placed reliance on the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del); Principal CIT vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals P Ltd. (2016) 236 Taxman 305 (Del) and on the Order of the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DSL Properties P Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 33 taxmann.com 420 (Delhi Tribunal). The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further contended that satisfaction note u/s 153C of the Act should be recorded by the A.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jmsw Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1079/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

…66 taxmann.com 107 (Delhi-Trib) 5. ACIT Vs. Command Detective and Securities Private Limited (ITA No. 4129-4134/Del/2012) 15.2 Reliance has been placed on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court: 1. Pepsi Foods Private Limited Vs. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112(Del) 2. CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Delhi) 3. Pr.CIT Vs. Aakash Arogya Mandir Private Limited in ITA No. 509/2015, Delhi High Court 15.3 Reliance has been also placed on the ratio of the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: 1. Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears (201…