Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

370 ITR 215High Court2015#11954 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 1961Section 250

Judgments citing Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

SHRI DILIP K DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-42(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3018/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmil Jhaveri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Akhatar Hussain Ansari, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 250

…• • • • • • • • • PCIT vs. Mohommad Haji Adam (Bombay High Court) INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1004 OF 2016 dated 23/04/2019. ITO V/s Nityasudha Combines V/s ITA Chennai. Rice Mills Vs CIT 218 ITR 508, Allahabad High Court. CIT VS M Venkatesh Road and Others (2015) 370 ITR 215 Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh High Court. M/s Fancy Wear V/s ITO Ward 24(3)(1), ITA No. 1596/1597/Mum/2016 dt. 20/09/2017. Shri Hiralal Chunilal Jain V/s ITO Ward 14(1)(4), ITA No. 4547/1275/Mum/2014 dt. 01/01/2016. M/s Ramesh Kumar & Co. v/s ACIT Ward 21(1), ITA No. 2959/Mum/2014 dt. 28/11/2014. Shri Pranhat Gupta v/s ITO, ITAT Mumbai dt. 09/03/…

M/S. HEMANT ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-27(1)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 1422/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

…le ITAT deleted the adhoc additions fully in similar cases. We relied on the following judgments of the higher forum:- ITO V/S Nityasudha Combines V/s ITA Chennai. Rice Mills Vs CIT 218 ITR 508, Allahabad High Court. CIT VS M Venkatesh Road and Others (2015) 370 ITR 215 Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh High Court. M/s Fancy Wear V/S ITO Ward 24(3)(1), ITA No. 1596/1597/Mum/2016 dt. 20/09/2017. Shri Hiralal Chunilal Jain V/S ITO Ward 14(1)(4), ITA No. 4547/1275/Mum/2014 dt. 01/01/2016. M/s Ramesh Kumar & Co. v/s ACIT Ward 21(1), ITA No. 2959/Mum/2014 dt. 28/11/2014. •Shri Pranhat Gupta v/s ITO, ITAT Mumbai dt. 09/03…

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 511/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R. R.Murthy
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 68Section 69B

…ssessment framed u/s. 153C of the Act. He further sought to buttress the point that the material. 5. We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing arguments. Case laws Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 231 Taxman 58 (Del); Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 370 ITR 215 (Del) and PCIT Vs. N S Software (Firm) 403 ITR 259 (Del) along with similar other various judicial precedents have already settled the law that such a satisfaction note is indeed a mandatory condition on the Assessing Officer’s part so as to set section 153C proceedings in motion. He is supposed to record that the alleged incriminating and seized…

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 510/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R. R.Murthy
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 68Section 69B

…ssessment framed u/s. 153C of the Act. He further sought to buttress the point that the material. 5. We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing arguments. Case laws Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 231 Taxman 58 (Del); Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 370 ITR 215 (Del) and PCIT Vs. N S Software (Firm) 403 ITR 259 (Del) along with similar other various judicial precedents have already settled the law that such a satisfaction note is indeed a mandatory condition on the Assessing Officer’s part so as to set section 153C proceedings in motion. He is supposed to record that the alleged incriminating and seized…

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 509/HYD/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R. R.Murthy
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 68Section 69B

…ssessment framed u/s. 153C of the Act. He further sought to buttress the point that the material. 5. We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing arguments. Case laws Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 231 Taxman 58 (Del); Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 370 ITR 215 (Del) and PCIT Vs. N S Software (Firm) 403 ITR 259 (Del) along with similar other various judicial precedents have already settled the law that such a satisfaction note is indeed a mandatory condition on the Assessing Officer’s part so as to set section 153C proceedings in motion. He is supposed to record that the alleged incriminating and seized…

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 675/HYD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani (A.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ng Officer could very very initiate proceedings after coming across the alleged seized material. 5. We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing arguments. Case laws Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 231 Taxman 58 (Del); Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 370 ITR 215 (Del) and PCIT Vs. N S Software (Firm) 403 ITR 259 (Del) along with similar other various judicial precedents have indeed a mandatory condition on the Assessing Officer’s part so as to set section 153C proceedings in motion. He is supposed to record that the alleged incriminating and seized material in fact “belongs to” the assessee concerned as…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PEPSI FOODS LTD. (NOW PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.)

C.A. No.-001106-001106 - 2021Supreme Court06 Apr 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 254

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1106 OF 2021 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.30284 OF 2015] DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S. PEPSI FOODS LTD. ..RESPONDENT (NOW PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1125 OF 2021 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.32081 OF 2017] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1107 OF 2021 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.34987 OF 2015] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1108 OF 2021 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.31311 OF 2015] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1109 OF 2021 [ARISING OUT…

M/S MAGIC AUTO (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3102/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153C

…has authored BAHIs was never produced before assessee for cross-examination on behalf of assessee. Therefore, the addition on merit is also not justified. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the following decisions : (1) Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd., ACIT 376 ITR 87 (Del.) (2) Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. DSL Properties (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT Dated 22.03.2013. (3) Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT 370 ITR 295 (Del.). (4) Pr. CIT vs. Vinita Chaurasia Order dated 20.08.2018 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, confirming the Order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 18.05.2017 (PB-62…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NOBLE MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.

ITA/527/2015HC Delhi03 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153C

…elation to whom the incriminating documents belonging to such other person were found during the course of the search. 15. With specific reference to the observations of this Court in Pepsi Foods (P). Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2015] 376 ITR 87 (Del), Mr Sabharwal submitted that the first step for the AO of the person who searched was to arrive at a clear satisfaction that the documents seized from the searched person does not belong to the searched person but the other person. It is only thereafter that, even if the AO of the searched person and the other person is the same, that t…