Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT

289 ITR 341Supreme Court of India2007#369 most cited

What is Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT authority for?

A block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act requires a prior search conducted under Section 132 or a requisition of documents/assets under Section 132A. This fundamental condition precedent applies to block assessments, including those concerning other persons under Section 158BD.

237

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Manish Maheshwari v ACIT · Section 158BD · Section 153C · Section 132 · block assessment condition precedent · search and seizure assessments · undisclosed income · incriminating material · assessment of third party · Section 132A · Section 158BC

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 153ASection 153CSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158BD

Issues it is cited on

section 158bdjdasection 158bcsection 153c(1)survey under section 133asatisfaction notedocuments seizedsection 158bsection 149date of transfersection 158rule of consistency

Judgments citing Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT

EMM. KAY ELECTRICALS,,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 208/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Vijh, CA
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 250(6)Section 69A

…ws recording of satisfaction only in the case of the assessee , which does not comply with the requirements of the provisions of the Act , in support of which the Ld AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Manish Mahershwari vs ACIT 289 ITR 341 and on various other decisions placed in paper book . 7) The Ld AR further took us to page 16 of the CIT ( A ) order paragraph – 4.1 relating to amended grounds of appeal -1(a) , to state that the Ld first appellate authority has mentioned, that the assessee has not filed any specific arguments on this ground and it does not require separate com…

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 688/LKW/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

…as not recorded by the jurisdictional AO before taking up proceedings under section 153C of the assessee. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Tanveer Collections Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle-21 in ITA No. 2421/DEL/2014 and Manish Maheshwari vs. ACIT 289 ITR 341 SC, wherein it had been laid down that the satisfaction notes had to be recorded in the file of the assessee in whose case action under section 153A was taken. It was submitted that from a perusal of the copy of the satisfaction note provided by the ld. AO, it could be seen that the proceedings had been initiated under section 153C on the basis o…

ALZARAFA TRAVEL & MANPOWER CONSULTANTS (P) LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , KOCHI

Accordingly, the Assessment Order, dated 05/03/2024, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 is quashed. Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1.1 raised by the Assessee vide Letter dated 15/08/2025 is allowed

ITA 575/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
Section 144Section 153CSection 15CSection 250Section 292B

…- *1.2. In the absence of a satisfaction note for AY 2015-16 [as is evident from paragraph 9.2 of the order of CIT(Appeals)] the assessment for the AY 2015-16 is bad at law based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Maheswari Vs. Asst. CIT [289 ITR 341] and also in CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears [362 ITR 0673] and also based on CBDT No.24 of 2015."* - 3. The relevant facts in the brief are that the Assessee, at the relevant time, was engaged in the business of man power recruitment and supply. A search operation was carried out on 27/03/2015 at the premises of the Assessee on the basis of warrant…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

ITA 360/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…nference of undisclosed income\nis a sine qua non for invocation of Section f 53C of the Act.\n51. Before considering the decisions cited at the Bar, it is necessary to refer to\na decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Maheshwah v. Asst. CIT\n[2007] 289 ITR 341/158 Taxman 258. In that case, search was conducted on one\nof the directors of the assessee-company M/s. Indore Construction (Pvt.) Ltd.\nWhen the search was conducted in the premises of the director Sri. Manish\nMaheshwari and his wife several incriminating documents relating to the\ncompany were seized. While dealing with Section 158BD of the A…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

ITA 358/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…nference of undisclosed income\nis a sine qua non for invocation of Section f 53C of the Act.\n51. Before considering the decisions cited at the Bar, it is necessary to refer to\na decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Maheshwah v. Asst. CIT\n[2007] 289 ITR 341/158 Taxman 258. In that case, search was conducted on one\nof the directors of the assessee-company M/s. Indore Construction (Pvt.) Ltd.\nWhen the search was conducted in the premises of the director Sri. Manish\nMaheshwari and his wife several incriminating documents relating to the\ncompany were seized. While dealing with Section 158BD of the A…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

ITA 357/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…nference of undisclosed income\nis a sine qua non for invocation of Section f 53C of the Act.\n51. Before considering the decisions cited at the Bar, it is necessary to refer to\na decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Maheshwah v. Asst. CIT\n[2007] 289 ITR 341/158 Taxman 258. In that case, search was conducted on one\nof the directors of the assessee-company M/s. Indore Construction (Pvt.) Ltd.\nWhen the search was conducted in the premises of the director Sri. Manish\nMaheshwari and his wife several incriminating documents relating to the\ncompany were seized. While dealing with Section 158BD of the A…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

ITA 356/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…nference of undisclosed income\nis a sine qua non for invocation of Section f 53C of the Act.\n51. Before considering the decisions cited at the Bar, it is necessary to refer to\na decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Maheshwah v. Asst. CIT\n[2007] 289 ITR 341/158 Taxman 258. In that case, search was conducted on one\nof the directors of the assessee-company M/s. Indore Construction (Pvt.) Ltd.\nWhen the search was conducted in the premises of the director Sri. Manish\nMaheshwari and his wife several incriminating documents relating to the\ncompany were seized. While dealing with Section 158BD of the A…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AMARJIT SINGH , BATHINDA

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee

ITA 774/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253Section 68

…an inference of undisclosed income is a sine qua non for invocation of Section f 53C of the Act. 51. Before considering the decisions cited at the Bar, it is necessary to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Maheshwah v. Asst. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 341/158 Taxman 258. In that case, search was conducted on one of the directors of the assessee-company M/s. Indore Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. When the search was conducted in the premises of the director Sri. Manish Maheshwari and his wife several incriminating documents relating to the company were seized. While dealing with Section 158BD of the Act,…

SMT. SHAKUNTLA DEVI,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1227/CHANDI/1996[01/04/1985 to 17/07/1995]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2025
For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 158B

…s been considered as representing the undisclosed income of the assessee has not been spelt out in the satisfaction so recorded by the AO. In support, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Manish Maheswari vs ACIT (2007) 289 ITR 341(SC), CIT vs Calcutta Knitwears (Supra), Tapan Kumar Dutta vs CIT (2018) 404 ITR 28 (SC), decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Amity Hotels Pvt Ltd, 272 ITR 75 (Del), decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Subhas Chandra Bhaniranka vs ACIT (2010) 320 ITR 349 (Cal). It was accordingly submitted that the satisfaction so re…

CHOUDHURY SWAPAN KUMAR MOHAPATRA,BALASORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 493/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 153CSection 153D

…faction in the file of M/s SM Consultancy before transferring of the seized document to the AO having jurisdiction over the impugned assesee. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheswari, reported in (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC). It was the submission that after this decision of Manish Maheswari (supra), the same has also been reiterated repeatedly. 6. When this issue was put to ld. CIT-DR, it was submitted by the ld. CIT-DR that he is not having access to the files of M/s SM Consultancy and, therefore, he is not in a position to answer in regard to produce the…

BANGALORE RAJASHEKHARA MEGHA L/R OF LATE KARI THIMMEGOWDA RAJASHEKHARA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1494/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Padmavathy S & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 153Section 153A

…to sustain the addition particularly in search matters because as 10 11 ITA Nos.1489-1494/Bang/2024 Late Kari Thimmegowda Rajeshekhara L/R by Bangalore Rajashekhara Megha. observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheswari case reported in 289 ITR 341 (SC) that a search is a serious invasion in the privacy of a citizen so after such invasion the department further cannot ask an assessee to prove against himself. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mera-baba reality casein ITA Number 637 of 2017 order dated 21.08.2017 has categorically held that a search is a full-fledged inqui…

BANGALORE RAJASHEKHARA MEGHA L/R OF LATE KARI THIMMEGOWDA RAJASHEKHARA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1493/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Padmavathy S & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 153Section 153A

…to sustain the addition particularly in search matters because as 10 11 ITA Nos.1489-1494/Bang/2024 Late Kari Thimmegowda Rajeshekhara L/R by Bangalore Rajashekhara Megha. observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheswari case reported in 289 ITR 341 (SC) that a search is a serious invasion in the privacy of a citizen so after such invasion the department further cannot ask an assessee to prove against himself. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mera-baba reality casein ITA Number 637 of 2017 order dated 21.08.2017 has categorically held that a search is a full-fledged inqui…

BANGALORE RAJASHEKHARA MEGHA L/R OF LATE KARI THIMMEGOWDA RAJASHEKHARA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1492/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Padmavathy S & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 153Section 153A

…to sustain the addition particularly in search matters because as 10 11 ITA Nos.1489-1494/Bang/2024 Late Kari Thimmegowda Rajeshekhara L/R by Bangalore Rajashekhara Megha. observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheswari case reported in 289 ITR 341 (SC) that a search is a serious invasion in the privacy of a citizen so after such invasion the department further cannot ask an assessee to prove against himself. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mera-baba reality casein ITA Number 637 of 2017 order dated 21.08.2017 has categorically held that a search is a full-fledged inqui…

BANGALORE RAJASHEKHARA MEGHA L/R OF LATE KARI THIMMEGOWDA RAJASHEKHARA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1490/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Padmavathy S & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 153Section 153A

…to sustain the addition particularly in search matters because as 10 11 ITA Nos.1489-1494/Bang/2024 Late Kari Thimmegowda Rajeshekhara L/R by Bangalore Rajashekhara Megha. observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheswari case reported in 289 ITR 341 (SC) that a search is a serious invasion in the privacy of a citizen so after such invasion the department further cannot ask an assessee to prove against himself. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mera-baba reality casein ITA Number 637 of 2017 order dated 21.08.2017 has categorically held that a search is a full-fledged inqui…

AGS DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,JASOLA DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (4), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2185/DEL/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2008-09] Ags Developers Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, H.No.47, Pocket Ii, Ward -1(4), Near Appollo Hospital, Jasola, New Delhi. New Delhi-110076. Pan-Aafca1795G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sandeep Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Siddharth B.S. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2024

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ons of section 153C of the Act are pari materia with Section 158BD of the Act (erstwhile block assessment proceedings under Chapter XIVB of the Act). Hence, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT reported in 289 ITR 341(SC) referred in the context of section 158BD proceedings shall apply mutatis mutandis to Section 153C proceedings also. In the facts of the case before the Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court, the ld AO in his order dated 24.12.2010 for assessment year 2005–06 had held in para 4.2 that reasons formed to reopen the assessment on the basis of assessee’s v…

ST.JOSEPH'S EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1620/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…t and also for violation under the Tamilnadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992 till date; VII. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manish Maheshwari vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr (2007) 289 ITR 341 has observed as under: “The provisions contained in Chapter XIVB are drastic in nature. It has draconian consequences. Such a proceeding can be initiated, it would bear repetition to state, only if a raid is conducted. When the provisions are attracted, legal presumptions are raised against the assessee. The burden shifts on the assessee. Audited…

ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1619/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…t and also for violation under the Tamilnadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992 till date; VII. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manish Maheshwari vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr (2007) 289 ITR 341 has observed as under: “The provisions contained in Chapter XIVB are drastic in nature. It has draconian consequences. Such a proceeding can be initiated, it would bear repetition to state, only if a raid is conducted. When the provisions are attracted, legal presumptions are raised against the assessee. The burden shifts on the assessee. Audited…

ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1618/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…t and also for violation under the Tamilnadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992 till date; VII. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manish Maheshwari vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr (2007) 289 ITR 341 has observed as under: "The provisions contained in Chapter XIVB are drastic in nature. It has draconian consequences. Such a proceeding can be initiated, it would bear repetition to state, only if a raid is conducted. When the provisions are attracted, legal presumptions are raised against the assessee. The burden shifts on the assessee. Audited…

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

…ial leading to an inference of undisclosed income is a sine qua non for invocation of section 153C of the Act". The Hon'ble Court came to the above conclusion after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT (289 ITR 341) and CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 and other judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and other Hon'ble High Courts and CBDT, Circular No.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015. The Hon'ble High Court also took the view that the AO is expected to spell out as to how the documents were incriminating in nature and prima facie represent undisclosed inc…

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

…ial leading to an inference of undisclosed income is a sine qua non for invocation of section 153C of the Act". The Hon'ble Court came to the above conclusion after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT (289 ITR 341) and CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 and other judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and other Hon'ble High Courts and CBDT, Circular No.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015. The Hon'ble High Court also took the view that the AO is expected to spell out as to how the documents were incriminating in nature and prima facie represent undisclosed inc…

Showing 1–20 of 237 · Page 1 of 12

...
Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT (289 ITR 341) — Cited in 237 Judgments | BharatTax