Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd.

397 ITR 182High Court#2178 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Additions to income cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement or confession recorded during a search operation. Such additions require corroborating incriminating material or other independent evidence to be permissible.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. · 397 ITR 182 · Section 153A · Section 132 · addition based on statement · corroborating evidence · incriminating material · search assessment · retracted statement · evidentiary value of statement

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 147Section 148Section 44AD

Issues it is cited on

section 94section 158b(b)section 268asection 142asurrender of incomesection 150mat creditsection 158bbsection 158bb(1)accumulated profitslegal expensesretracted statement

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd.

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

ITA 1673/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

…accounts, documents and assets possessed by a person are relevant for the purposes of the investigation being undertaken.” 1.5.2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38 of the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble High Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).” 41.7. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in a series of cases, including PCIT vs. Ra…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. INDO COUNT INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3854/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 1Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…in receipt of such cash. Reliance in this regard is being placed on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Agarwal 241 IT Appeal No. 8 of 2004 (Delhi), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 182 (Delhi) and PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3174 16. Even the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dilbagh Rai Arora in ITA No. 304 of 2009 (Allahabad), has held as under: “20. In the above judgment the Hon'ble Court has come to the. conclusion that the addition was not made merely on the st…

DCIT CC 7 4, MUMBAI vs. INDO COUNT INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3853/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 1Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…in receipt of such cash. Reliance in this regard is being placed on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Agarwal 241 IT Appeal No. 8 of 2004 (Delhi), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 182 (Delhi) and PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3174 16. Even the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dilbagh Rai Arora in ITA No. 304 of 2009 (Allahabad), has held as under: “20. In the above judgment the Hon'ble Court has come to the. conclusion that the addition was not made merely on the st…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. INDO COUNT INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3850/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 1Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…in receipt of such cash. Reliance in this regard is being placed on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Agarwal 241 IT Appeal No. 8 of 2004 (Delhi), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 182 (Delhi) and PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3174 16. Even the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dilbagh Rai Arora in ITA No. 304 of 2009 (Allahabad), has held as under: “20. In the above judgment the Hon'ble Court has come to the. conclusion that the addition was not made merely on the st…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. INDO COUNT INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3826/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 1Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…in receipt of such cash. Reliance in this regard is being placed on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Agarwal 241 IT Appeal No. 8 of 2004 (Delhi), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 182 (Delhi) and PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3174 16. Even the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dilbagh Rai Arora in ITA No. 304 of 2009 (Allahabad), has held as under: “20. In the above judgment the Hon'ble Court has come to the. conclusion that the addition was not made merely on the st…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 4, MUMBAI vs. INDO COUNT INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3824/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 1Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…in receipt of such cash. Reliance in this regard is being placed on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Agarwal 241 IT Appeal No. 8 of 2004 (Delhi), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 182 (Delhi) and PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3174 16. Even the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dilbagh Rai Arora in ITA No. 304 of 2009 (Allahabad), has held as under: “20. In the above judgment the Hon'ble Court has come to the. conclusion that the addition was not made merely on the st…

JAYANTIKA SINGH, DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. INDO COUNT INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3822/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 1Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…in receipt of such cash. Reliance in this regard is being placed on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Agarwal 241 IT Appeal No. 8 of 2004 (Delhi), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 182 (Delhi) and PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3174 16. Even the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dilbagh Rai Arora in ITA No. 304 of 2009 (Allahabad), has held as under: “20. In the above judgment the Hon'ble Court has come to the. conclusion that the addition was not made merely on the st…

JAYANTIKA SINGH DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. INDO COUNT INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3820/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 1Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…in receipt of such cash. Reliance in this regard is being placed on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Agarwal 241 IT Appeal No. 8 of 2004 (Delhi), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 182 (Delhi) and PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3174 16. Even the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dilbagh Rai Arora in ITA No. 304 of 2009 (Allahabad), has held as under: “20. In the above judgment the Hon'ble Court has come to the. conclusion that the addition was not made merely on the st…

KUBER METPACK P.LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS KEVIN METPACK P.LTD),DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee vide ITR Nos

ITA 1408/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 68

…note. Page 39 of 43 Before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, the assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573, Meeta Gutgutiya 395 ITR 526. Harjeev Agarwal 241taxman 199 and Best Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 182, in support of its claim that no addition was permissible in assessee’s case on the existing facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance was also placed upon the decision and the case of Abhisar Buildwell. The Ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of the Ld. AO and submitted that statement of Sh Malu constitutes incriminating evidence. 48. We…

KUBER KHADYAN PVT. LTD.,NEW DLEHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee vide ITR Nos

ITA 320/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 68

…note. Page 39 of 43 Before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, the assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573, Meeta Gutgutiya 395 ITR 526. Harjeev Agarwal 241taxman 199 and Best Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 182, in support of its claim that no addition was permissible in assessee’s case on the existing facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance was also placed upon the decision and the case of Abhisar Buildwell. The Ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of the Ld. AO and submitted that statement of Sh Malu constitutes incriminating evidence. 48. We…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. MS SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATOTRIES AND EDUCATION LTD., , CHANDIGARH

ITA 93/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

…counts, documents and assets possessed by a person are relevant for the purposes of the investigation being undertaken.” 8. 5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38 of the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble High Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).” 18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai Ambey Phar…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 857/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…counts, documents and assets possessed by\na person are relevant for the purposes of the investigation being undertaken.”\n8.5.2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 856/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…nts, documents and assets possessed by\na person are relevant for the purposes of the investigation being undertaken.”\n8. 5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 845/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…nts, documents and assets possessed by\na person are relevant for the purposes of the investigation being undertaken.”\n8. 5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 844/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 153A

…s, documents and assets possessed by\na person are relevant for the purposes of the investigation being undertaken.”\n\n8. 5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmb…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 843/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…nts, documents and assets possessed by\na person are relevant for the purposes of the investigation being undertaken.”\n8. 5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey…

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 833/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…nts, documents and assets possessed by\na person are relevant for the purposes of the investigation being undertaken.”\n8. 5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey…

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 832/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 127Section 153D

…counts, documents and assets possessed by\na person are relevant for the purposes of the investigation being undertaken.”\n8.5.2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey…

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 831/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…nts, documents and assets possessed by\na person are relevant for the purposes of the investigation being undertaken.”\n8. 5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey…

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 829/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 153A

…nts, documents and assets possessed by\na person are relevant for the purposes of the investigation being undertaken.”\n8. 5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey…

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3

Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 182) — Cited in 53 Judgments | BharatTax