Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

370 ITR 295High Court2015#344 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 366,470 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)
Read the full judgment

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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mr. Devender Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi

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

ITA 3554/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153C

…without satisfying the statutory preconditions is erroneous and thus not tenable. 1.4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani vs. ACIT reported in 333 ITR 436 wherein it has been held that, loose papers found as a result of search containing appellant’s name cannot be a basis to assume that, such papers belong to the appellant and inabsence thereof, condition precedent for issuance of notice is not fulfilled and as such action taken u/s 153C of the Act stands vitiated. 1.5 That initiation of proceeding…

M/S. Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12 and that of the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 6627/DEL/2013[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 6572/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 6573/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 6574/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6575/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Central Circle-09, Ltd., D-6/13, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110067 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn3865G

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 37

…ce of a notice under section 153C had not been fulfilled. Inasmuch as this condition precedent had not been met, the notices under section 153C were liable to be quashed.” 14. Similarly, in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT & Another (2015) 370 ITR 295, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under: “That in the satisfaction note there was nothing to indicate that the seized documents did not belong to the J group. This was even apart from the fact that there was no disclaimer on the part of the J group in so far as the documents were concerned. Secondly, the finding of photocopies in th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12 and that of the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 6572/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 6572/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 6573/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 6574/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6575/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Central Circle-09, Ltd., D-6/13, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110067 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn3865G

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 37

…ce of a notice under section 153C had not been fulfilled. Inasmuch as this condition precedent had not been met, the notices under section 153C were liable to be quashed.” 14. Similarly, in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT & Another (2015) 370 ITR 295, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under: “That in the satisfaction note there was nothing to indicate that the seized documents did not belong to the J group. This was even apart from the fact that there was no disclaimer on the part of the J group in so far as the documents were concerned. Secondly, the finding of photocopies in th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moon Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 416/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Nirupma Kotru, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153C

…th the AO before he arrives at the satisfaction that the seized document does not belong to the searched person but to somebody else. The Ld. AR also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT 270 ITR 467 for the preposition that the MOU seized did not belong to the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that no satisfaction was recorded as the Assessing Officer of the searched person but as the AO of the third party i.e. the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aakash Arogya Mandir…

Moon Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 203/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Nirupma Kotru, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153C

…th the AO before he arrives at the satisfaction that the seized document does not belong to the searched person but to somebody else. The Ld. AR also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT 270 ITR 467 for the preposition that the MOU seized did not belong to the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that no satisfaction was recorded as the Assessing Officer of the searched person but as the AO of the third party i.e. the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aakash Arogya Mandir…

Moon Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 202/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Nirupma Kotru, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153C

…th the AO before he arrives at the satisfaction that the seized document does not belong to the searched person but to somebody else. The Ld. AR also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT 270 ITR 467 for the preposition that the MOU seized did not belong to the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that no satisfaction was recorded as the Assessing Officer of the searched person but as the AO of the third party i.e. the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aakash Arogya Mandir…

The Senate, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1475/BANG/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.N.Prakash, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 36

…n the meaning of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was assessable as such on the income from the property." ITA Nos.1475 to 1481/Bang/2013 Page 16 of 23 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. Lairy Distributors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed on legal grounds Nos

ITA 6947/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…more, looking at the documents as well, they are nothing but mere photocopies in the shape of financial statements and trial balances and in view of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. vs ACIT reported in 370 ITR 295, the said documents cannot be said to be belonging to the assessee - appellant. That further in support of the aforesaid proposition the assessee - appellant would seek to place reliance on following judgments: S.No Judgments Pg Nos. of . PB - III 6. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble High 33-45 Court of Delhi in the case of SSP Aviation Ltd. vs DCIT…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bheemaneni Builders (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue as well as cross objections of the assessee are allowed, for statistical purpose

ITA 1362/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A Nos.1362 & 1363/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(2), Bangalore .. Appellant V. M/S. Bheemaneni Builders (I) P. Ltd, [Now Known As M/S. Bbipl Infrastructure (P) Ltd, No.2/2, 3Rd Block, Rajajinagar, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore – 560 010 .. Respondent Pan : Aaccb1418N Cross Objection Nos.5 & 6/Bang/2011 (In I.T.A Nos.1362 & 1363/Bang/2010) (Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07) Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. M. Vijay Kumar, Asst. Cit Heard On : 26.11.2015 Pronounced On : 11.12.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Vijay Kumar, Asst. CIT
Section 153C

…imate connection with the person concerned over a period of time. 07. Per contra, Ld. AR strongly supporting the order of CIT (A), placed specific reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd v. ACIT [(2015) 370 ITR 295]. According to him, a document which belonged to one person cannot simultaneously belong to another person also. As per the Ld. AR, unless and until it was established that the seized documents did not belong to the searched ITA.1362 &1363/Bang/2010 Page - 8 CO.5 &6/Bang/2011 person, provision of Section 153C of the Act would not get attracted.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd

ITA/419/2015HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel
Section 132Section 153CSection 260A

…ares and the same stood registered in the name of one Satpal on 26th March, 2004. 21. The ITAT considered the above contentions and following the decision of this Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi) held that the documents in question could not be said to belonging to the Assessee. In Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court has explained that the expression ‘belongs to’ must not be confused with the expression ‘relates to’. As an illustration, this Court has referred to a registered sale deed which, although, regi…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd

ITA/410/2015HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel
Section 132Section 153CSection 260A

…ares and the same stood registered in the name of one Satpal on 26th March, 2004. 21. The ITAT considered the above contentions and following the decision of this Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi) held that the documents in question could not be said to belonging to the Assessee. In Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court has explained that the expression ‘belongs to’ must not be confused with the expression ‘relates to’. As an illustration, this Court has referred to a registered sale deed which, although, regi…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd

ITA/381/2015HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel
Section 132Section 153CSection 260A

…ares and the same stood registered in the name of one Satpal on 26th March, 2004. 21. The ITAT considered the above contentions and following the decision of this Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi) held that the documents in question could not be said to belonging to the Assessee. In Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court has explained that the expression ‘belongs to’ must not be confused with the expression ‘relates to’. As an illustration, this Court has referred to a registered sale deed which, although, regi…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd

ITA/653/2015HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel
Section 132Section 153CSection 260A

…ares and the same stood registered in the name of one Satpal on 26th March, 2004. 21. The ITAT considered the above contentions and following the decision of this Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi) held that the documents in question could not be said to belonging to the Assessee. In Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court has explained that the expression ‘belongs to’ must not be confused with the expression ‘relates to’. As an illustration, this Court has referred to a registered sale deed which, although, regi…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd

ITA/422/2015HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel
Section 132Section 153CSection 260A

…ares and the same stood registered in the name of one Satpal on 26th March, 2004. 21. The ITAT considered the above contentions and following the decision of this Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi) held that the documents in question could not be said to belonging to the Assessee. In Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court has explained that the expression ‘belongs to’ must not be confused with the expression ‘relates to’. As an illustration, this Court has referred to a registered sale deed which, although, regi…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd

ITA/389/2015HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel
Section 132Section 153CSection 260A

…ares and the same stood registered in the name of one Satpal on 26th March, 2004. 21. The ITAT considered the above contentions and following the decision of this Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi) held that the documents in question could not be said to belonging to the Assessee. In Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court has explained that the expression ‘belongs to’ must not be confused with the expression ‘relates to’. As an illustration, this Court has referred to a registered sale deed which, although, regi…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd

ITA/793/2015HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel
Section 132Section 153CSection 260A

…ares and the same stood registered in the name of one Satpal on 26th March, 2004. 21. The ITAT considered the above contentions and following the decision of this Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi) held that the documents in question could not be said to belonging to the Assessee. In Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court has explained that the expression ‘belongs to’ must not be confused with the expression ‘relates to’. As an illustration, this Court has referred to a registered sale deed which, although, regi…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd

ITA/524/2015HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel
Section 132Section 153CSection 260A

…ares and the same stood registered in the name of one Satpal on 26th March, 2004. 21. The ITAT considered the above contentions and following the decision of this Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi) held that the documents in question could not be said to belonging to the Assessee. In Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court has explained that the expression ‘belongs to’ must not be confused with the expression ‘relates to’. As an illustration, this Court has referred to a registered sale deed which, although, regi…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd

ITA/735/2015HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel
Section 132Section 153CSection 260A

…ares and the same stood registered in the name of one Satpal on 26th March, 2004. 21. The ITAT considered the above contentions and following the decision of this Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi) held that the documents in question could not be said to belonging to the Assessee. In Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court has explained that the expression ‘belongs to’ must not be confused with the expression ‘relates to’. As an illustration, this Court has referred to a registered sale deed which, although, regi…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd

ITA/720/2015HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel
Section 132Section 153CSection 260A

…ares and the same stood registered in the name of one Satpal on 26th March, 2004. 21. The ITAT considered the above contentions and following the decision of this Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Delhi) held that the documents in question could not be said to belonging to the Assessee. In Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court has explained that the expression ‘belongs to’ must not be confused with the expression ‘relates to’. As an illustration, this Court has referred to a registered sale deed which, although, regi…

Pr. Commissioner Ofincome Tax - 2 vs. Natural Products Bio Tech Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/570/2015HC Delhi14 Aug 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 153Section 260

…/ $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 3. + ITA 569/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX - 2. Appellant Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel and Ms Shikha Garg, Advocates versus NATURAL PRODUCTS BIO TECH LTD. Respondent Through: Mr Sudesh Garg, Advocate WITH 4. + ITA 570/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX - 2. Appellant Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel and Ms Shikha Garg, Advocates versus NATURAL PRODUCTS BIO TECH LTD. Respondent Through: Mr Sudesh Garg, Advocate AND 5.…