CIT v. Index Securities

304 CTR 67High Court2018#6972 most cited

What is CIT v. Index Securities authority for?

The satisfaction note must reveal incriminating material for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This material must be incriminating and relate to the assessment years being reopened.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Index Securities · Section 153C · satisfaction note · incriminating material · jurisdiction · assessment years · search and seizure · income tax assessment · Delhi High Court

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 245csettlement applicationsection 245d(4)section 153c(1)scheme of arrangementsection 245dincome tax settlement commissionfull and true disclosuredemergersurvey under section 133asection 245non application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Index Securities

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 497/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Pavav Ved, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 132Section 153C

…material has been found against the assessee. Mentioning of the material in the satisfaction note is a condition precedent for assuming the jurisdiction of section 153C of the Act as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Index Securities reported in 304 CTR 67. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience : “31. As regards the second jurisdictional requirement viz., that the seized documents must be incriminating and must relate to the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened, the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Ta…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 99/COCH/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…s.” 12. We further observe that revealing of the incriminating material in the satisfaction note is a condition precedent for assuming the jurisdiction of section 153C of the Act as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Index Securities reported in 304 CTR 67. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 8 of 10 “31. As regards the second jurisdictional requirement viz., that the seized documents must be incriminating and must relate to the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened, the de…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 98/COCH/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…s.” 12. We further observe that revealing of the incriminating material in the satisfaction note is a condition precedent for assuming the jurisdiction of section 153C of the Act as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Index Securities reported in 304 CTR 67. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 8 of 10 “31. As regards the second jurisdictional requirement viz., that the seized documents must be incriminating and must relate to the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened, the de…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 101/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…s.” 12. We further observe that revealing of the incriminating material in the satisfaction note is a condition precedent for assuming the jurisdiction of section 153C of the Act as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Index Securities reported in 304 CTR 67. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 8 of 10 “31. As regards the second jurisdictional requirement viz., that the seized documents must be incriminating and must relate to the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened, the de…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 100/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…s.” 12. We further observe that revealing of the incriminating material in the satisfaction note is a condition precedent for assuming the jurisdiction of section 153C of the Act as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Index Securities reported in 304 CTR 67. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 8 of 10 “31. As regards the second jurisdictional requirement viz., that the seized documents must be incriminating and must relate to the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened, the de…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The DCIT, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 462/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…s.” 12. We further observe that revealing of the incriminating material in the satisfaction note is a condition precedent for assuming the jurisdiction of section 153C of the Act as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Index Securities reported in 304 CTR 67. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 8 of 10 “31. As regards the second jurisdictional requirement viz., that the seized documents must be incriminating and must relate to the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened, the de…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The DCIT, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 461/COCH/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…s.” 12. We further observe that revealing of the incriminating material in the satisfaction note is a condition precedent for assuming the jurisdiction of section 153C of the Act as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Index Securities reported in 304 CTR 67. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 8 of 10 “31. As regards the second jurisdictional requirement viz., that the seized documents must be incriminating and must relate to the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened, the de…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The DCIT, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 460/COCH/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…s.” 12. We further observe that revealing of the incriminating material in the satisfaction note is a condition precedent for assuming the jurisdiction of section 153C of the Act as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Index Securities reported in 304 CTR 67. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 8 of 10 “31. As regards the second jurisdictional requirement viz., that the seized documents must be incriminating and must relate to the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened, the de…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The DCIT, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 459/COCH/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…s.” 12. We further observe that revealing of the incriminating material in the satisfaction note is a condition precedent for assuming the jurisdiction of section 153C of the Act as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Index Securities reported in 304 CTR 67. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 8 of 10 “31. As regards the second jurisdictional requirement viz., that the seized documents must be incriminating and must relate to the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened, the de…

DCIT Circle-I(Ltu), New Delhi vs. Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly we dispose of the matters for AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 for the same reasons as under :- i. Thus, For AY 2007-08, Ground no 1 & 2 of the appeal of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5406/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivatava, CIT DR
Section 153CSection 245

…various High Courts. Prominently among members Pepsi foods private limited versus ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del), PepsiCo India Holdings private limited versus ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295, principal Commissioner of income tax versus Index Security private limited 304 CTR 67, CIT versus Renu constructions private limited 399 ITR 262 43. he further submitted that in the instant case the AO of the assessee has made certain reference in the satisfaction note with respect to certain correspondences over and above the satisfaction note dated 27 three 2014 but has not independently verified the impugned pen drive to arrive…

DCIT Circle-I(Ltu), New Delhi vs. Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly we dispose of the matters for AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 for the same reasons as under :- i. Thus, For AY 2007-08, Ground no 1 & 2 of the appeal of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5405/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivatava, CIT DR
Section 153CSection 245

…various High Courts. Prominently among members Pepsi foods private limited versus ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del), PepsiCo India Holdings private limited versus ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295, principal Commissioner of income tax versus Index Security private limited 304 CTR 67, CIT versus Renu constructions private limited 399 ITR 262 43. he further submitted that in the instant case the AO of the assessee has made certain reference in the satisfaction note with respect to certain correspondences over and above the satisfaction note dated 27 three 2014 but has not independently verified the impugned pen drive to arrive…

DCIT Circle-I(Ltu), New Delhi vs. Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly we dispose of the matters for AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 for the same reasons as under :- i. Thus, For AY 2007-08, Ground no 1 & 2 of the appeal of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5404/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivatava, CIT DR
Section 153CSection 245

…various High Courts. Prominently among members Pepsi foods private limited versus ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del), PepsiCo India Holdings private limited versus ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295, principal Commissioner of income tax versus Index Security private limited 304 CTR 67, CIT versus Renu constructions private limited 399 ITR 262 43. he further submitted that in the instant case the AO of the assessee has made certain reference in the satisfaction note with respect to certain correspondences over and above the satisfaction note dated 27 three 2014 but has not independently verified the impugned pen drive to arrive…

DCIT Circle-I(Ltu), New Delhi vs. Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly we dispose of the matters for AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 for the same reasons as under :- i. Thus, For AY 2007-08, Ground no 1 & 2 of the appeal of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5403/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivatava, CIT DR
Section 153CSection 245

…various High Courts. Prominently among members Pepsi foods private limited versus ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del), PepsiCo India Holdings private limited versus ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295, principal Commissioner of income tax versus Index Security private limited 304 CTR 67, CIT versus Renu constructions private limited 399 ITR 262 43. he further submitted that in the instant case the AO of the assessee has made certain reference in the satisfaction note with respect to certain correspondences over and above the satisfaction note dated 27 three 2014 but has not independently verified the impugned pen drive to arrive…

DCIT Circle-1 Ltu, New Delhi vs. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd, New Delhi

Accordingly we dispose of the matters for AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 for the same reasons as under :- i. Thus, For AY 2007-08, Ground no 1 & 2 of the appeal of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5402/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivatava, CIT DR
Section 153CSection 245

…various High Courts. Prominently among members Pepsi foods private limited versus ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del), PepsiCo India Holdings private limited versus ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295, principal Commissioner of income tax versus Index Security private limited 304 CTR 67, CIT versus Renu constructions private limited 399 ITR 262 43. he further submitted that in the instant case the AO of the assessee has made certain reference in the satisfaction note with respect to certain correspondences over and above the satisfaction note dated 27 three 2014 but has not independently verified the impugned pen drive to arrive…

DCIT Circle-I(Ltu), New Delhi vs. Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly we dispose of the matters for AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 for the same reasons as under :- i. Thus, For AY 2007-08, Ground no 1 & 2 of the appeal of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5401/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivatava, CIT DR
Section 153CSection 245

…various High Courts. Prominently among members Pepsi foods private limited versus ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del), PepsiCo India Holdings private limited versus ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295, principal Commissioner of income tax versus Index Security private limited 304 CTR 67, CIT versus Renu constructions private limited 399 ITR 262 43. he further submitted that in the instant case the AO of the assessee has made certain reference in the satisfaction note with respect to certain correspondences over and above the satisfaction note dated 27 three 2014 but has not independently verified the impugned pen drive to arrive…

Marudhara Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

ITA 890/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.890/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/s. Marudhara Marketing Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, C/o Ravi Gupta, Advocate, Central Circle 30, E – 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 048. (PAN : AAACM8162G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 04.09.2019 Date of Order : 21.10.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, M/s. Marudhara Marketing Pvt. Lt…