M.B. Lal v. CIT

279 ITR 298High Court2005#5486 most cited

What is M.B. Lal v. CIT authority for?

The validity of search proceedings under section 132 cannot be examined in an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against a block assessment. The remedy for challenging the search lies under Article 226 of the Constitution.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2022.

Also referred to as

M.B. Lal v. CIT · validity of search · block assessment · appeal · tribunal · section 132 · article 226 · search and seizure · administrative decision

Issues it is cited on

warrant of authorisationsection 132(1)section 292section 29undisclosed incomesearch and seizuresection 132section 15section 13personindiatotal income

Judgments citing M.B. Lal v. CIT

Mr. B.Nagendra, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1946/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…count alone. 17. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee cannot question the validity of search by issue of notice u/s. 153A and consequent framing of assessment. He relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M B Lal v. CIT, 279 ITR 298 (Del) wherein it was held that the validity of search proceedings cannot be examined in appeal filed before the Tribunal against the block assessment and the remedy lies under article 226 of the Constitution. In Paras Rice [2009] 313 ITR 182, the Punjab and Haryana High Court following the decision of the Delhi High Court in M.B. Lal's case [2005…

Mr. B.Nagendra, Belgium vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1945/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…count alone. 17. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee cannot question the validity of search by issue of notice u/s. 153A and consequent framing of assessment. He relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M B Lal v. CIT, 279 ITR 298 (Del) wherein it was held that the validity of search proceedings cannot be examined in appeal filed before the Tribunal against the block assessment and the remedy lies under article 226 of the Constitution. In Paras Rice [2009] 313 ITR 182, the Punjab and Haryana High Court following the decision of the Delhi High Court in M.B. Lal's case [2005…

M/S Hml Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s Cross Objections for Assessment Years 2002-

ITA 83/BANG/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Delta Infralogistics The Deputy Commissioner Of 2002-03 (Worldwide) Ltd., Income Tax, [Formerly Hml Agencies Pvt. Ltd.,] Central Circle, #202, Veekay Towers, Mangalore. Kulur Bangra Road, Kulur, Mangalore. Pan : Aaach 7083 B The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Delta Infralogistics 2003-04 Tax, (Worldwide) Ltd., Circle – 1(1), Mangalore. Mangalore. Pan : Aaach 7083 B C.O. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 9/Bang/2013 M/S. Delta Infralogistics The Deputy Commissioner 2003-04 (Worldwide) Ltd., Of Income Tax, (In Ita No.817/Bang/2012) Mangalore. Central Circle, Pan : Aaach 7083 B Mangalore. 10/Bang/2013 -Do- -Do- 2004-05 (In Ita No. 818/Bang/2012) 11/Bang/2013 -Do- -Do- 2005-06 (In Ita No.819/Bang/2012) 12/Bang/2013 -Do- -Do- 2006-07 (In Ita No.820/Bang/2012) 13/Bang/2013 -Do- -Do- 2007-08 (In Ita No.821/Bang/2012)

For Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Jr. to Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 153A

…f CHITRA DEVI SONI reported in 214 CTR 119, which is quoted with approval by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of T.S.CHANDRASHEKAR reported in 17 DTR 194 in preference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M.B.LAL reported in 279 ITR 298, which turned on the peculiar facts obtaining in the said case, which is not subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 7. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in pr…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashok Chawla

ITA/817/2007HC Delhi11 Apr 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 260

…cover, no doubt, a perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal establishes that it declined to pronounce upon the validity of the search proceedings on account of its previous special bench ruling as well as the judgment of this Court in M.B. Lal v. CIT 279 ITR 298. No fault therefore, can be found with the impugned order. 21. At the same time, this Court has to nevertheless examine independently whether the search proceedings were indeed justified having regard to the entirety of the circumstances. Since elaborate submissions were ITA 478/2007 & connected matters Page 17 of 62 made in this re…

Anuj Chawla vs. Commissioner of Income Tax New

ITA/478/2007HC Delhi11 Apr 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 260

…cover, no doubt, a perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal establishes that it declined to pronounce upon the validity of the search proceedings on account of its previous special bench ruling as well as the judgment of this Court in M.B. Lal v. CIT 279 ITR 298. No fault therefore, can be found with the impugned order. 21. At the same time, this Court has to nevertheless examine independently whether the search proceedings were indeed justified having regard to the entirety of the circumstances. Since elaborate submissions were ITA 478/2007 & connected matters Page 17 of 62 made in this re…

Centaur Helicopter Services P.Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/988/2007HC Delhi11 Apr 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 260

…cover, no doubt, a perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal establishes that it declined to pronounce upon the validity of the search proceedings on account of its previous special bench ruling as well as the judgment of this Court in M.B. Lal v. CIT 279 ITR 298. No fault therefore, can be found with the impugned order. 21. At the same time, this Court has to nevertheless examine independently whether the search proceedings were indeed justified having regard to the entirety of the circumstances. Since elaborate submissions were ITA 478/2007 & connected matters Page 17 of 62 made in this re…

Ashok Chawla vs. Commissioner of Income Tax New

ITA/495/2007HC Delhi11 Apr 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 260

…cover, no doubt, a perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal establishes that it declined to pronounce upon the validity of the search proceedings on account of its previous special bench ruling as well as the judgment of this Court in M.B. Lal v. CIT 279 ITR 298. No fault therefore, can be found with the impugned order. 21. At the same time, this Court has to nevertheless examine independently whether the search proceedings were indeed justified having regard to the entirety of the circumstances. Since elaborate submissions were ITA 478/2007 & connected matters Page 17 of 62 made in this re…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Centaur Impex P.Ltd

ITA/1246/2007HC Delhi11 Apr 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 260

…cover, no doubt, a perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal establishes that it declined to pronounce upon the validity of the search proceedings on account of its previous special bench ruling as well as the judgment of this Court in M.B. Lal v. CIT 279 ITR 298. No fault therefore, can be found with the impugned order. 21. At the same time, this Court has to nevertheless examine independently whether the search proceedings were indeed justified having regard to the entirety of the circumstances. Since elaborate submissions were ITA 478/2007 & connected matters Page 17 of 62 made in this re…

Centaur Impex P.Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax New

ITA/479/2007HC Delhi11 Apr 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 260

…cover, no doubt, a perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal establishes that it declined to pronounce upon the validity of the search proceedings on account of its previous special bench ruling as well as the judgment of this Court in M.B. Lal v. CIT 279 ITR 298. No fault therefore, can be found with the impugned order. 21. At the same time, this Court has to nevertheless examine independently whether the search proceedings were indeed justified having regard to the entirety of the circumstances. Since elaborate submissions were ITA 478/2007 & connected matters Page 17 of 62 made in this re…

M/S. Jakson Enterprises, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 6791/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: - Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: - Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT- DR
Section 14ASection 153ASection 80

…ndia Ltd. - ITA No. 269/2014 dated 14.7.2014 (Del.); ii) Canara Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT - ITA No. 38/2014 dated 25.7.2014 (Karnataka). iii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia 24 Taxman.com 98 (Del). iv) Promain Ltd. Vs. DCIT 95 ITD 489 (Del) (SB). v) M.B. Lal 279 ITR 298 (Del) vi) Dr. A.K. Bansal, 355 ITR 513 (All). vii) ITO vs. Varia Pratik Engineering 120 TTJ 1 (Ahd) viii) CIT vs. Raj Kumar Arora, ITA No. 56/2011 (All. H.C.) ix) DCIT vs. Apoorva Extrusion Pvt. Ltd. & ors. ITA Nos. 3308/Del/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03) & ors. Order dated 09.10.2014. 9. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, we find that…

Pr. CIT-06 vs. Nilkanth Concast Pvt. Ltd

ITA/312/2016HC Delhi13 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 246A

…as the first question is concerned, learned counsel for the Revenue has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and this Court in M. B. Lal v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 279 ITR 298 (Del). The learned counsel has also referred to Section 142(2C) of the Act and pointed out that the Assessing Officer („AO‟) could have extended the time to submit the audit report. It is submitted that this was not one of the specific grounds raised in the appeal filed by the Assessee in the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (App…

Sri. K. Radhakrishna Naik, Puttur vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 363/BANG/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 234D

…153A rws 143[3] of the Act, on the ground that he was in-competent to adjudicate this ground having regard to the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in C.RAMAIAH REDDY' case reported in 87 ITD 439 and Delhi High Court in the case of M.B.LAL reported in 279 ITR 298, which are inapplicable to the facts of the case. 3. The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions in correct perceptive and the decision of the jurisdictional ITAT in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY in 87 ITD 439 relied upon by him categorically held that the Hon'ble ITAT is competent to look into the validit…

Comm.of Income Tax Bangalore vs. Navabharat Enterprises Hyd

In the result, Income Tax Appeal No

ITTA/3/2000HC Telangana02 Jan 2012

Bench: This Court & Hence Both Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Judgment. 2. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate Have Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Sri Manish Goel, Advocate Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of Revenue. 3. Revenue'S Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- (1)Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Tribunal Was Right In Holding That Authorization For Search

For Appellant: - M/S Verma Roadways Through its Partner R.K.VermaFor Respondent: - Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Section 132Section 158Section 260A

…1 (AFR) Reserved on 17.11.2017 Delivered on 11.01.2018 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 3 of 2000 Appellant :- M/S Verma Roadways Through its Partner R.K.Verma Respondent :- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Counsel for Appellant :- A.P. Singh, S.P. Gupta, Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Agarwal, Manish Goel And Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 4 of 2000 Appellant :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kanpur & Another Respondent :- M/S Verma Roadways .133/225 Transport Nagar,Kanpur Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Agrawal,C.S.C., Manish Goel Counsel for Respondent :- Ravi Kant, Seni…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anil Minda

ITA/582/2009HC Delhi14 Sept 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 132Section 132(1)

…ion of the search‘ to mean when there is scrutiny of all the material collected which may be searched or otherwise and when has resulted in drawing of last panchnama as the conclusion of the search. (See 319 (AT) 197 (SB), 238 ITR 501 at 504 (Kerala) and 279 ITR 298 (Del). ITA No.582 of 2009 with ITA No.527 of 2009,ITA No.593 of 2009, Page 17 of 20 ITA No.605 of 2009,ITA No.618 of 2009 & ITA No.772 of 2009 22. The primary function of the Court is to find out the intention of the legislature. According to us, the legislature has manifested its intention eloquently, in the manner…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vandana Minda

ITA - 593 / 2009HC Delhi14 Sept 2010
Section 132Section 132(1)

…nclusion of the search' to mean when there is scrutiny of all the material collected which may be searched or otherwise and when has resulted in drawing of last panchnama as the conclusion of the search. (See 319 (AT) 197 (SB), 238 ITR 501 at 504 (Kerala) and 279 ITR 298 (Del). The primary function of the Court is to find out the intention 22. the legislature. According to us, the legislature has manifested its intention eloquently, in the manner stated by us above, by inserting Explanation-2. In State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Kodaikanl Motor Union (P) Ltd. 23. 2 SCR 927, the Supreme Court referring to K.P. Varghese V…

Commissioner of Income Tax Centre III vs. Patliputra International Trading Ltd

ITA - 351 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…misplaced. The Supreme Court has not adjudicated the issues involved in the present case and it does not help the case of the assessees. The issue involved in the present appeals is dealt with and answered by this Court in the case of M.B. Lal v. CIT, [2005] 279 ITR 298 (Delhi). It is submitted that restraint order under Section 132(2) has a limited life of 60 days only. The resort to this Section could not be said to be improper in view of the actual seizure of substantial unexplained cash exceeding Rs.25 crores from various accounts. Reference is also invited to the block assessment orders in which the ![](_…

Commissioner of Income Tax Central III vs. Harmony Psychiatry Centre Pvt Ltd

ITA - 339 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…misplaced. The Supreme Court has not adjudicated the issues involved in the present case and it does not help the case of the assessees. The issue involved in the present appeals is dealt with and answered by this Court in the case of M.B. Lal v. CIT, [2005] 279 ITR 298 (Delhi). It is submitted that restraint order under Section 132(2) has a limited life of 60 days only. The resort to this Section could not be said to be improper in view of the actual seizure of substantial unexplained cash exceeding Rs.25 crores from various accounts. Reference is also invited to the block assessment orders in which the ![](_…

Commissione of Income Tax Central III vs. Professional Leasing & Capital Service Ltd

ITA - 350 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…misplaced. The Supreme Court has not adjudicated the issues involved in the present case and it does not help the case of the assessees. The issue involved in the present appeals is dealt with and answered by this Court in the case of M.B. Lal v. CIT, [2005] 279 ITR 298 (Delhi). It is submitted that restraint order under Section 132(2) has a limited life of 60 days only. The resort to this Section could not be said to be improper in view of the actual seizure of substantial unexplained cash exceeding Rs.25 crores from various accounts. ![](_page_14_Picture_1.jpeg) AO has clearly brought out that the assessees…

Commissiner of Income Tax Centre III vs. Kandla Petrochmicals Corp. Ltd

ITA - 336 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…isplaced. The Supreme Court has not adjudicated the issues involved in the present case and it does not help the case of the assessees. The issue involved in the present appeals is dealt with and answered by this Court in the case of *M.B. Lal v. CIT*, [2005] 279 ITR 298 (Delhi). It is submitted that restraint order under Section 132(2) has a limited life of 60 days only. The resort to this Section could not be said to be improper in view of the actual seizure of substantial unexplained cash exceeding Rs.25 crores from various accounts. ![](_page_14_Picture_1.jpeg) AO has clearly brought out that the assessees…

Commissioner of Income-Tax Central III vs. M/s. Shilpi Securities Pvt. Ltd. etc. etc

ITA-130/2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…REPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No.130/2009, 333/2009, 335/2009, 336/2009, 337/2009, 339/2009, 350/2009, 351/2009 and 367/2009 % Judgment Reserved on: 03.11.2009 Judgment Pronounced on : 30.11.2009 Commissioner of Income-Tax Central III …..Appellant (in all matters) through : Mr. N.P. Sahni VERSUS M/s. Shilpi Securities Pvt. Ltd. …..Respondent in ITA No.130/2009 M/s. Uikam Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Others …..Respondent in ITA No.333/2009 M/s. Annie Investment and Finance Co. P. Ltd. ……

M.B. Lal v. CIT (279 ITR 298) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax