Search Admission Prevails: ITAT Restores Rs. 2.15 Crore Cash Addition After Rejecting Retraction:

Search Admission Prevails: ITAT Restores Rs. 2.15 Crore Cash Addition After Rejecting Retraction

ITAT Holds That Bare Retraction and Post-Search Book Entries Cannot Undo Clear Section 132(4) Admission

ITAT: Retraction Without Evidence Cannot Undo Search Admission on Cash

authorMeetu KumaridateDec 28, 2025
Last update on Dec 28, 2025
Search Admission Prevails: ITAT Restores Rs. 2.15 Crore Cash Addition After Rejecting Retraction The assessee, Adarsh Journal Pvt. Ltd., engaged in liquor trading, operated from licensed premises at Omaxe Square, Jasola, New Delhi. During AY 2016-17, it took an additional shop in the same complex on rent, paying Rs. 23.20 lakh, with the stated intention of shifting its liquor business and opening an eatery. Although the assessee intimated the Excise Department of its intent to shift the L-10 licence by letter dated 03.09.2015, the formal application was filed only on 26.07.2016, and the licence for the new premises was granted in AY 2017-18.
Section 44ADA Benefit Cannot Be Denied to CA Merely for Being a Partner: Rules ITAT
The Assessing Officer disallowed the rent expenditure for AY 2016-17 on the ground that no liquor business could be legally carried on from the new premises without a valid excise licence. The disallowance was upheld by the CIT(A) and the ITAT, leading to an appeal before the Delhi High Court. Question of Law: Whether rent paid for a new premises is deductible when the statutory excise licence permitting business operations from that premises was granted only in the later assessment year.
ITAT Holds Offshore Supply of Drawings, Designs and Equipment by German Company Not Taxable in India
HC Ruled: The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the disallowance. It held that liquor trade is a regulated activity requiring a valid licence for the specific premises. In the absence of statutory permission during AY 2016-17, the premises could not be said to have been “used” for business purposes. Accordingly, rent paid for the new premises in AY 2016-17 was not allowable as a deduction. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157
Up Next

Loading suggestions…