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

397 ITR 182High Court#2176 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 366,314 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.

Shri Balram Krishan, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 732/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…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…

Shri Balram Krishan, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 731/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)

…accounts, 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…

Shri Balram Krishan, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 730/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2

…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…

Shri Balram Krishan, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 729/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…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…

Shri Balram Krishan, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 728/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 579/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.582 To 584/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 To 2016-17 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 591/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Maxport India Pvt. Ltd. C/O Parikshit Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant, H. No. 3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh- 160019. स्था.लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaicm9120E अपीलाथ/Appellant बनाम प्रथीय/Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Centre Circle-1, Chandigarh. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.482 & 483/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vaishali Aggarwal C/O Parikshit Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant, H No. 3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh- 160022. स्था.लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaqpa4025M अपीलाथ/Appellant बनाम प्रथीय/Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Centre Circle-1, Chandigarh. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 846/Chd/2023

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…

Shri Balram Krishan, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 727/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…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…

Shri Balram Krishan, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 726/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
Section 153A

…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…

Maxport India Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 583/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
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…

Maxport India Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 582/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…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…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh

ITA 506/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…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…

DCIT, CC 1, Chandigarh vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

ITA 505/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 153DSection 2

…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…

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 489/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…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…

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 480/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
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…

Kuber Grains & Spices Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee vide ITR Nos

ITA 2711/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 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…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Disha Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 900/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

…hawla (2016), 380 ITR 573(Delhi) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujart High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Soumya Construction (P) Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 529 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 182 (Del) and various decisions of other High Courts and lastly, on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisher Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 454 ITR 212 (SC), wherein, it has been held that no addition can be made in respect of completed/unabated assessment in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Samriddhi Metals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 899/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

…hawla (2016), 380 ITR 573(Delhi) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujart High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Soumya Construction (P) Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 529 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 182 (Del) and various decisions of other High Courts and lastly, on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisher Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 454 ITR 212 (SC), wherein, it has been held that no addition can be made in respect of completed/unabated assessment in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Samriddhi Metals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 898/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

…hawla (2016), 380 ITR 573(Delhi) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujart High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Soumya Construction (P) Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 529 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 182 (Del) and various decisions of other High Courts and lastly, on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisher Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 454 ITR 212 (SC), wherein, it has been held that no addition can be made in respect of completed/unabated assessment in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Samriddhi Metals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 897/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

…hawla (2016), 380 ITR 573(Delhi) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujart High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Soumya Construction (P) Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 529 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 182 (Del) and various decisions of other High Courts and lastly, on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisher Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 454 ITR 212 (SC), wherein, it has been held that no addition can be made in respect of completed/unabated assessment in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Samriddhi Metals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 896/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

…hawla (2016), 380 ITR 573(Delhi) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujart High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Soumya Construction (P) Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 529 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 182 (Del) and various decisions of other High Courts and lastly, on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisher Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 454 ITR 212 (SC), wherein, it has been held that no addition can be made in respect of completed/unabated assessment in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Praful Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 894/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

…hawla (2016), 380 ITR 573(Delhi) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujart High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Soumya Construction (P) Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 529 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 182 (Del) and various decisions of other High Courts and lastly, on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisher Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 454 ITR 212 (SC), wherein, it has been held that no addition can be made in respect of completed/unabated assessment in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed…