← All Phrases

“panchnama”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 1321,050 judgments

R.K.INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 363/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Shri M V Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 69A

search was conducted jointly in M/s. Prathima\nInfrastructure Limited (for short, “M/s. PIL") group of cases and as the\ndate of the last panchnama drawn on the said group was 23/07/2020,\ntherefore, the same would govern the reckoning of the period of limitation\nand, thus, the assessment completed

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. R.K.INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 235/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri M V Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 69A

search was conducted jointly in M/s. Prathima\nInfrastructure Limited (for short, “M/s. PIL") group of cases and as the\ndate of the last panchnama drawn on the said group was 23/07/2020,\ntherefore, the same would govern the reckoning of the period of limitation\nand, thus, the assessment completed

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 955/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

collected / received:- On analysis of the information / documents, it is noticed from print out retrieved from all in one computer which was seized by panchnama dated 19/02/2018 that additional jewellery articles has been manufactured by M/s Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery. In his statement recorded ... information regarding search of CGST Wing of the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Department wherein a print out was seized vide Panchnama dated 19.02.2018 mentioning manufacturing of additional Jewellery articles and statement of Shri Bharat Kumar Patel that the firm had manufactured additional Jewellery

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 954/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

collected / received:- On analysis of the information / documents, it is noticed from print out retrieved from all in one computer which was seized by panchnama dated 19/02/2018 that additional jewellery articles has been manufactured by M/s Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery. In his statement recorded ... information regarding search of CGST Wing of the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Department wherein a print out was seized vide Panchnama dated 19.02.2018 mentioning manufacturing of additional Jewellery articles and statement of Shri Bharat Kumar Patel that the firm had manufactured additional Jewellery

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 953/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

collected / received:- On analysis of the information / documents, it is noticed from print out retrieved from all in one computer which was seized by panchnama dated 19/02/2018 that additional jewellery articles has been manufactured by M/s Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery. In his statement recorded ... information regarding search of CGST Wing of the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Department wherein a print out was seized vide Panchnama dated 19.02.2018 mentioning manufacturing of additional Jewellery articles and statement of Shri Bharat Kumar Patel that the firm had manufactured additional Jewellery

RAJESH B. JAIN AS LEGAL HEIR OF BHANWARLAL M. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2050/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

appellant and neither same was not found at the premises of the appellant and neither the pen drive was mentioned in the panchnama nor the ownership the pen drive was mentioned in the panchnama nor the ownership the pen drive was mentioned in the panchnama nor the ownership

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1884/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1876 & 1884/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/S. Vilas Polymer (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaacv9854A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Both Dated 31/10/2025, For The Asst. Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

search have been separately issued for the assessee company and Shri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka, Sr. Accounts Manager which is evident from the relevant panchnama drawn on 04/01/2023. Further, the searches were also conducted at different places. The only common thread between these two searches is that Shri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1876/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1876 & 1884/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/S. Vilas Polymer (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaacv9854A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Both Dated 31/10/2025, For The Asst. Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

search have been separately issued for the assessee company and Shri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka, Sr. Accounts Manager which is evident from the relevant panchnama drawn on 04/01/2023. Further, the searches were also conducted at different places. The only common thread between these two searches is that Shri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD., HYDERABAD

ITA 1873/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

leaving the above mentioned place of the search, the entire search party again\noffered themselves for personal search which was taken / declined. The above panchnama\nhas been read by us / explained-to-us-in-local-language viz Telugu-by-Shri / Sint\nand is certified that it has been correctly recorded

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1571/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

nsearch have been separately issued for the assessee company and\nShri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka, Sr. Accounts Manager which is\nevident from the relevant panchnama drawn on 04/01/2023.\nFurther, the searches were also conducted at different places. The\nonly common thread between these two searches is that Shri\nRamesh Kumar Sanaka

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1566/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

nsearch have been separately issued for the assessee company and\nShri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka, Sr. Accounts Manager which is\nevident from the relevant panchnama drawn on 04/01/2023.\nFurther, the searches were also conducted at different places. The\nonly common thread between these two searches is that Shri\nRamesh Kumar Sanaka

ASHOK KUMAR MOONAT,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), INDORE, INDORE

ITA 715/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 28Section 68Section 69BSection 80C

business and profession and other\nsources. In the search action, three loose papers were found and\nseized as part of Annx - 5 of the panchnama prepared on 29.10.2011\nat the office premises of 114/116, Mittal Court, C-Wing, 11th floor,\nNariman Point, Mumbai - 400021. These documents mention the carat\nvalue

MEGHNA BANGA,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, DELHI

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

ITA 3936/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 132Section 142Section 153Section 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 292CSection 65Section 69A

promoter and director of JBL) at Plot No.25, Vaishali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi, in a dongle (Seized as Annexure A-25, Party No JKR vide Panchnama dated 08.01.2017). The digital data pertains mainly to FYs 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. The analysis of the said soft data clearly showed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAMA SHANKAR KHEMKA, GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

carried out in "Khemka Group of cases"on 14.01.2021.The search proceeding on locker No. 874 dated 08.03.2021 and is evident from the Panchnama dated 09.03.2021, in which copy of draft agreement of sale in relation to property located at A-32, Westend Colony, Delhi, (47-48 of PB), estimation cost

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAJESH RANI KHEMKA , GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

carried out in "Khemka Group of cases"on 14.01.2021.The search proceeding on locker No. 874 dated 08.03.2021 and is evident from the Panchnama dated 09.03.2021, in which copy of draft agreement of sale in relation to property located at A-32, Westend Colony, Delhi, (47-48 of PB), estimation cost

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PMK IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED , ATMA RAM HOUSE

ITA 1002/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

carried out in\n\"Khemka Group of cases\"on 14.01.2021.The search proceeding on locker\nNo. 874 dated 08.03.2021 and is evident from the Panchnama dated\n09.03.2021, in which copy of draft agreement of sale in relation to property\nlocated at A-32, Westend Colony, Delhi, (47-48 of PB), estimation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PAYAL KHEMKA , K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

carried out in "Khemka Group of cases"on 14.01.2021.The search proceeding on locker No. 874 dated 08.03.2021 and is evident from the Panchnama dated 09.03.2021, in which copy of draft agreement of sale in relation to property located at A-32, Westend Colony, Delhi, (47-48 of PB), estimation cost

UMESH KYAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 3(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2566/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2023-24 Umesh Kyal……..……..…..……….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 30C, South End Park, Lake, Kol-29. [Pan: Agcpk9667R] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata.….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

search party only of Shri Umesh Kyal and Shri Rahul Kyal respectively and none of the other persons whose name appears in the Panchnama have been required to make a Statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. His submission is that from the Statement so recorded ... levied by the Assessing Officer instead of 30% u/s 271AAB(1A)(a) of the Act. We have gone through the Panchnama which has been filed by the assessee and find that it was drawn in the name of family members of Kyal group and there are nine persons

GYASUDDIN MOHAMMAD ANSARI,PURNIA vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), PURNEA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 311/PAT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 80Section 80E

raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the cost of Acquisition of Property received through "Panchnama Batwara" on the basis of MVR Rate for the year as a Government portal downloaded from the "Bhoomi Jankari-Bihar" portal containing ... filed written submissions as under: Ground No.1 For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the cost of Acquisition of Property received through "Panchnama Batwara" on the basis of MVR Rate for the year as downloaded from the "Bhoomi Jankari-Bihar" portal-a Government portal containing

BALKRISHAN KYAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KOLKATA

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2565/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2023-24 Anurag Kyal………..…..……….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 122/1R, Satyendra Nath Mazumder Sarani, Hazra, Kol-26. [Pan: Agipk4906H] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata ..…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2023-24 Balkrishan Kyal……..…..……….…………………….……….……….……Appellant 30/15/138, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530020. [Pan: Abdpk2892E] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata.….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 29, 2026

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

search party only of Shri Umesh Kyal and Shri Rahul Kyal respectively and none of the other persons whose name appears in the Panchnama have been required to make a Statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. His submission is that from the Statement so recorded ... levied by the Assessing Officer instead of 30% u/s 271AAB(1A)(a) of the Act. We have gone through the Panchnama which has been filed by the assessee and find that it was drawn in the name of family members of Kyal group and there are nine persons

Showing 1–20 of 1,050 · Page 1 of 53

...