Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

370 ITR 295High Court2015#342 most cited

What is Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Section 153C of the Income-tax Act is invoked only when it is established that seized documents do not belong to the searched person, or if the searched person disclaims them; the satisfaction note must specifically indicate this fact.

249

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

Pepsico India Holdings v. ACIT · Section 153C · Section 153A · Section 132 · seized documents · documents belonging to searched person · satisfaction note · disclaimer of documents · search assessment · undisclosed income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 1961Section 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 131(1A)Section 132(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 153c(1)section 132(4a)documents seizedblock periodsatisfaction notesection 132asection 153bsection 153csection 153dsection 153undisclosed incomesection 153a

Judgments citing Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), CHENNAI vs. RAMANATHAN VISWANATHAN, CHENNAI

ITA 1597/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…itulated the litigation\nwhich ensued on the interpretation of ‘belongs or belonged to’ used in\nSection 153C of the Act and particularly pointed out the decision of the\nHon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (P.)\nLtd. v. Asstt. CIT (370 ITR 295) wherein the High Court has observed\nthat the words \"belongs or belong to\" should not be confused with the\nwords 'relates to or refers to,' the former being much narrower than the\nlatter. He explained to us that, in relation to searches which were\nconducted on or before 01.06.2015, the provisions of Section 153C could\nnot have been invoked…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAMANATHAN VISWANATHAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1556/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026

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

For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…apitulated the litigation which ensued on the interpretation of ‘belongs or belonged to’ used in Section 153C of the Act and particularly pointed out the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (370 ITR 295) wherein the High Court has observed that the words "belongs or belong to" should not be confused with the words 'relates to or refers to,' the former being much narrower than the ITA No.1321/Chny/2025 & Others R. Viswanathan :: 43 :: latter. He explained to us that, in relation to searches which were conducted on or before 01.06.2015, the prov…

R.VISWANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, CHENNAI

ITA 1324/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…itulated the litigation\nwhich ensued on the interpretation of ‘belongs or belonged to’ used in\nSection 153C of the Act and particularly pointed out the decision of the\nHon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (P.)\nLtd. v. Asstt. CIT (370 ITR 295) wherein the High Court has observed\nthat the words \"belongs or belong to\" should not be confused with the\nwords 'relates to or refers to,' the former being much narrower than the\n:: 43 ::\nlatter. He explained to us that, in relation to searches which were\nconducted on or before 01.06.2015, the provisions of Section 153C could\nnot have be…

R.VISWANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

ITA 1323/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…itulated the litigation\nwhich ensued on the interpretation of ‘belongs or belonged to’ used in\nSection 153C of the Act and particularly pointed out the decision of the\nHon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (P.)\nLtd. v. Asstt. CIT (370 ITR 295) wherein the High Court has observed\nthat the words \"belongs or belong to\" should not be confused with the\nwords 'relates to or refers to,' the former being much narrower than the\n:: 42 :: \nITA No.1321/Chny/2025 & Others \nR. Viswanathan\nlatter. He explained to us that, in relation to searches which were\nconducted on or before 01.06.2015,…

R.VISWANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, CHENNAI

ITA 1322/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…itulated the litigation\nwhich ensued on the interpretation of ‘belongs or belonged to’ used in\nSection 153C of the Act and particularly pointed out the decision of the\nHon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (P.)\nLtd. v. Asstt. CIT (370 ITR 295) wherein the High Court has observed\nthat the words \"belongs or belong to\" should not be confused with the\nwords 'relates to or refers to,' the former being much narrower than the\nlatter. He explained to us that, in relation to searches which were\nconducted on or before 01.06.2015, the provisions of Section 153C could\nnot have been invoked…

RAM MOHANA REDDY BADDIGAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 422/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 153CSection 69A

…DCIT vs., UK Paints (Overseas) Ltd., [2023] 150 taxmann.com 108 (SC). 2. PCIT, Central-3 vs., Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., [2023] 149. 3. CIT, Delhi-IV vs., Girish Choudhary [2007] 163 Taxman 608 (Del.). 4. Pepsico India Holdings (P.) Ltd., Vs., ACIT [2015] 370 ITR 295 (Del.). 5. PCIT (Central)-3 vs., TDI Infrastructure Ltd., [2024] 169 taxmann.com 223 (Del.). 6. Saksham Commodities Ltd., vs., ITO [2024] 464 ITR 1 (Del.). 7. ITAT, Hyderabad ‘A’-Bench, Hyderabad Order dated 13.02.2025in the case of ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs., M/s. Royal Engineering, Hyderabad in ITA.Nos.44 & 19/Hyd./2021 [Cross-App…

RAM MOHANA REDDY BADDIGAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 421/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 153CSection 69A

…DCIT vs., UK Paints (Overseas) Ltd., [2023] 150 taxmann.com 108 (SC). 2. PCIT, Central-3 vs., Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., [2023] 149. 3. CIT, Delhi-IV vs., Girish Choudhary [2007] 163 Taxman 608 (Del.). 4. Pepsico India Holdings (P.) Ltd., Vs., ACIT [2015] 370 ITR 295 (Del.). 5. PCIT (Central)-3 vs., TDI Infrastructure Ltd., [2024] 169 taxmann.com 223 (Del.). 6. Saksham Commodities Ltd., vs., ITO [2024] 464 ITR 1 (Del.). 7. ITAT, Hyderabad ‘A’-Bench, Hyderabad Order dated 13.02.2025in the case of ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs., M/s. Royal Engineering, Hyderabad in ITA.Nos.44 & 19/Hyd./2021 [Cross-App…

RAM MOHANA REDDY BADDIGAM,GUNTUR vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 420/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 153CSection 69A

…DCIT vs., UK Paints (Overseas) Ltd., [2023] 150 taxmann.com 108 (SC). 2. PCIT, Central-3 vs., Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., [2023] 149. 3. CIT, Delhi-IV vs., Girish Choudhary [2007] 163 Taxman 608 (Del.). 4. Pepsico India Holdings (P.) Ltd., Vs., ACIT [2015] 370 ITR 295 (Del.). 5. PCIT (Central)-3 vs., TDI Infrastructure Ltd., [2024] 169 taxmann.com 223 (Del.). 6. Saksham Commodities Ltd., vs., ITO [2024] 464 ITR 1 (Del.). 7. ITAT, Hyderabad ‘A’-Bench, Hyderabad Order dated 13.02.2025in the case of ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs., M/s. Royal Engineering, Hyderabad in ITA.Nos.44 & 19/Hyd./2021 [Cross-App…

RAM MOHANA REDDY BADDIGAM,GUNTUR vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 419/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 153CSection 69A

…DCIT vs., UK Paints (Overseas) Ltd., [2023] 150 taxmann.com 108 (SC). 2. PCIT, Central-3 vs., Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., [2023] 149. 3. CIT, Delhi-IV vs., Girish Choudhary [2007] 163 Taxman 608 (Del.). 4. Pepsico India Holdings (P.) Ltd., Vs., ACIT [2015] 370 ITR 295 (Del.). 5. PCIT (Central)-3 vs., TDI Infrastructure Ltd., [2024] 169 taxmann.com 223 (Del.). 6. Saksham Commodities Ltd., vs., ITO [2024] 464 ITR 1 (Del.). 7. ITAT, Hyderabad ‘A’-Bench, Hyderabad Order dated 13.02.2025in the case of ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs., M/s. Royal Engineering, Hyderabad in ITA.Nos.44 & 19/Hyd./2021 [Cross-App…

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 336/RJT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 54Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "ायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/RJT/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The ACIT, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AESPS 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee by : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. AR Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.…

M/S KHEMKA STUART LEISURE LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 6376/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Acit, M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-9, C/O- Bgjc & Associates, Raj New Delhi Tower, G-1, Alaknanda Community Centre, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Sohna Technobuild Central Circle-18, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aakcs8148N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)

…e deemed to be the owner of the property within the meaning of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was assessable as such on the income from the property." 9.3 Again, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (370 ITR 295) following its earlier decision in the case of Pepsi Foods P. Ltd (supra) held that unless it is established that the documents in question do not belong to the searched person, the question of invoking the provisions of sec.153C of the Act does not arise. It was also held that unless searched person disclaims the documents as belonging to him, p…

M/S KHEMKA STUART LEISURE LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 6375/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Acit, M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-9, C/O- Bgjc & Associates, Raj New Delhi Tower, G-1, Alaknanda Community Centre, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Sohna Technobuild Central Circle-18, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aakcs8148N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)

…e deemed to be the owner of the property within the meaning of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was assessable as such on the income from the property." 9.3 Again, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (370 ITR 295) following its earlier decision in the case of Pepsi Foods P. Ltd (supra) held that unless it is established that the documents in question do not belong to the searched person, the question of invoking the provisions of sec.153C of the Act does not arise. It was also held that unless searched person disclaims the documents as belonging to him, p…

M/S SNEREA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 6330/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Acit, M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-9, C/O- Bgjc & Associates, Raj New Delhi Tower, G-1, Alaknanda Community Centre, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Sohna Technobuild Central Circle-18, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aakcs8148N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)

…e deemed to be the owner of the property within the meaning of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was assessable as such on the income from the property." 9.3 Again, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (370 ITR 295) following its earlier decision in the case of Pepsi Foods P. Ltd (supra) held that unless it is established that the documents in question do not belong to the searched person, the question of invoking the provisions of sec.153C of the Act does not arise. It was also held that unless searched person disclaims the documents as belonging to him, p…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SNEREA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 6237/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Acit, M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-9, C/O- Bgjc & Associates, Raj New Delhi Tower, G-1, Alaknanda Community Centre, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Sohna Technobuild Central Circle-18, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aakcs8148N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)

…e deemed to be the owner of the property within the meaning of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was assessable as such on the income from the property." 9.3 Again, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (370 ITR 295) following its earlier decision in the case of Pepsi Foods P. Ltd (supra) held that unless it is established that the documents in question do not belong to the searched person, the question of invoking the provisions of sec.153C of the Act does not arise. It was also held that unless searched person disclaims the documents as belonging to him, p…

MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

ITA 205/BANG/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Y. V. Raviraj, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 153ASection 153C

…vs Renu Constructions reported in 99 taxmann.com 426 (Delhi):- The learned Standing Council for the Revenue submitted that in this case the Delhi High Court, following the decision of its coordinate bench in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (P) ltd vs ACIT 370 ITR 295 held that the amendment to section 153C of the Act, carried out w.e.f. 01/06/2015, was prospective in nature and the same cannot be applied to searches conducted prior to the amendment. The learned AR contented that this decision of the Delhi High Court is no longer good law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

ITA 45/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Respondent: Shri. Chandrasekhar, AR
Section 153ASection 153C

…vs Renu Constructions reported in 99 taxmann.com 426 (Delhi):- The learned Standing Council for the Revenue submitted that in this case the Delhi High Court, following the decision of its coordinate bench in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (P) ltd vs ACIT 370 ITR 295 held that the amendment to section 153C of the Act, Page 22 of 77 carried out w.e.f. 01/06/2015, was prospective in nature and the same cannot be applied to searches conducted prior to the amendment. The learned AR contented that this decision of the Delhi High Court is no longer good law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in t…

FORUM AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 482/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh

Section 132Section 153CSection 69

…ording reasonable satisfaction in the satisfaction note that the documents referred to in the satisfaction note belongs to the appellant company as per the proposition laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pepsico Holdings Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT 370 ITR 295 (Delhi). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.3,90,00,000/- by holding that the equivalent amount of cash has been paid by the appellant for purchasing the land without considering the submission made by the appellant during the course of appell…

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 253/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…son other than the person in whose hands search was conducted and proceedings under s.153A of the Act was initiated. The expression 'belong to' was explained by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited vs. ACIT [2015] 370 ITR 295 (Delhi). It was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that Section 153C of the Act cannot be invoked unless the AO of the searched person is satisfied for cogent reasons that seized documents do not 'belong to' the searched person. The distinction between expression 'belongs to' and 'relates to' or 'refers to' must be borne in mind by AO. It w…

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 252/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…son other than the person in whose hands search was conducted and proceedings under s.153A of the Act was initiated. The expression 'belong to' was explained by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited vs. ACIT [2015] 370 ITR 295 (Delhi). It was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that Section 153C of the Act cannot be invoked unless the AO of the searched person is satisfied for cogent reasons that seized documents do not 'belong to' the searched person. The distinction between expression 'belongs to' and 'relates to' or 'refers to' must be borne in mind by AO. It w…

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 251/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…son other than the person in whose hands search was conducted and proceedings under s.153A of the Act was initiated. The expression 'belong to' was explained by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited vs. ACIT [2015] 370 ITR 295 (Delhi). It was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that Section 153C of the Act cannot be invoked unless the AO of the searched person is satisfied for cogent reasons that seized documents do not 'belong to' the searched person. The distinction between expression 'belongs to' and 'relates to' or 'refers to' must be borne in mind by AO. It w…

Showing 1–20 of 249 · Page 1 of 13

...