Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi vs. Vinita Chaurasia, New Delhi

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

…xure A-1 page 5) to sustain the additions made to the assessable income of the Respondent has not been shown to 'belong' to the Assessee. In arriving at this conclusion, the ITAT followed the decision of this Court in Pepsico India Holding Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Del). Mr. Shivpuri on the other hand submitted that there have been subsequent decisions of the DBs of this Court which have explained the aforementioned decision and in particular the phrase „belongs to‟ occurring in Section 153C of the Act. He placed particular reliance on the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income- tax-8 v. Super Malls…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rangoli Buildtech (P) Ltd., New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs Rangoli Buildtech (P) Ltd., Central Circle-14, 1105, Akash Deep Building, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccr8695P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sunit Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26Th March, 2014 Of The Cit(A)-33 New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Purchasing & Selling & Developing Of Real Estate. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act, 1961 Was Conducted By The Investigation Wing Of The Department On 22.03.2011 In The Amtek Group Of Cases. The Premises Of M/S Excel Infotech Pvt. Ltd. & Others, 9, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi Was Also Covered U/S 132(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Which Is A Group Company Of Amtek Group. The Documents Belonging To The Assessee, M/S Rangoli Buildtech Pvt Ltd, 1105, Akash Deep Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi- 110001 Were Also Found & Seized From The Premises Of M/S Excel Infotech Pvt Ltd & Others, 9, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi In Whose Name Search Warrant Of Authorization Was Issued. The Assessee'S Case Was Proposed For Centralization By The Investigation Wing For Coordinated Investigation & Assessment U/S 153C & Subsequently It Was Centralized With Central Circle- 14, New Delhi Vide Order F.No Cit(C) Centr/2012- 13/239 Dated 25.04.2012. Accordingly Notice U/S 153C Of The Income Tax Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 08.11.2012. In Response To The Said Notice, The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 05.02.2013 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.6,89,710/-.

…action as to how the recovered material belonged to the assessee in the note that preceded the notice issued under it, vitiates the assessments. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 370 ITR 295, he submitted that the 7 Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that it is necessary that before the provisions of section 153C of the said Act can be invoked, the AO of the searched person must be satisfied that the seized material (which includes documents) does not belong to the searched person. Referring to the decision of the Hon’b…

M/S Brahmaputra Holdings (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Brahmaputra Dy.CIT, Holdings (P) Ltd., Central Circle-17, Vs. Brahmaputra House, New Delhi A-7, NH-8, Mahipalpur Crossing, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110 037 PAN –AACCB 5616N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 15.06.2020 Date of Pronouncement 31.08.2020 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against or…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Stc Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

…the additions made to the assessable income of the Respondent has not been shown to 'belong' to the Assessee. In arriving at this conclusion, the ITAT followed the decision of this Court in I.T.A. No.2738/DEL/2016 14 Pepsico India Holding Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295(Del). Mr. Shivpuri on the other hand submitted that there have been subsequent decisions of the DBs of this Court which have explained the aforementioned decision and in particular the phrase ‘belongs’ to occurring in Section 153C of the Act. He placed particular reliance on the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-8 v. Super Malls (…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

…xure A-1 page 5) to sustain the additions made to the assessable income of the Respondent has not been shown to 'belong' to the Assessee. In arriving at this conclusion, the ITAT followed the decision of this Court in Pepsico India Holding Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295(Del). Mr. Shivpuri on the other hand submitted that there have been subsequent decisions of the DBs of this Court which have explained the aforementioned decision and in particular the phrase ‘belongs’ to occurring in Section 153C of the Act. He placed particular reliance on the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-8 v. Super Malls (…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Glensdale Enterprises Development Pvt. Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

…assumed jurisdiction on the premise that the said document belonged to the assessee. On this aspect, the position of law is covered against the Revenue by the decision in Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. 2015 370 ITR 295 Del. On this short ground, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be sustained. Even otherwise, we find that the Assessing Officer did not make any additions on the basis of the agreement dated 05.09.2006 attributed to the assessee. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make additions dehors the said agreement, which in any ev…