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

Jt CIT(OSD)-Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Vainavin Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us The Ld Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Is Covered By Series Of Decision In The Group Case Of The Assessee & In Support, Decision Of Itat In The Case Of Jcit(Osd) Vs. Nabendu Engineering Pvt. Ltd Ita No. 875/Mum/2022 Dated 12.12.2022 Wherein, Exactly Similar Grounds Were Raised Except In Variations In Figures Of Share Application Money. In This Case Also The Assessee Has Filed Application Under Rule 27 Of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 Raising Legal Issue Contending That Before The Ld Cit (A) The Assessee Has Raised These Legal Grounds That The Addition Made By The Ao Are Not Based On Any Incriminating Material Or Evidence Found During The Course Of Search Relating To The Additions Made By The Ao & Is Beyond The Scope Of Section 153C Of The Act. The Said Grounds Read As Under:-

…ired to ascertain whether the documents reflect undisclosed income. The documents are then transferred to the jurisdictional AO who will record reasons before proceeding under Sec 153C. The Hon'ble court followed the decision in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 367 ITR 112 (del) 10 Vainavin Realty Pvt Ltd wherein it has been held that the recording of satisfaction with respect to the documents seized is necessarily the first step towards initiation of proceeding u/s 153C. This is a must even though both the AOS concerned are one and the same person. 23. In the case of the appellant there is no evidence that satis…

Jt Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD) Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai vs. Goodways Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

…ired to ascertain whether the documents reflect undisclosed income. The documents are then transferred to the jurisdictional AO who will record reasons before proceeding under Sec 153C. The Hon'ble court followed the decision in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 367 ITR 112 (del.) wherein it has been held that the recording of satisfaction with respect to the documents seized is necessarily the first step towards initiation of proceeding u/s 153C. This is a must even though both the AOs concerned are one and the same person. 22. In the case of the appellant there is no evidence that satisfaction as prescribed under…