Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT

289 ITR 341Supreme Court of India2007#369 most cited

What is Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT authority for?

A block assessment proceeding under section 158BD is illegal if the procedure laid down in section 153C is not followed. The provisions of section 153C are similar to section 158BD in block assessment proceedings.

237

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT · section 153C · section 158BD · block assessment · satisfaction note · assumption of jurisdiction · search · documents seized · illegal assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 153ASection 153CSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158BD
Read the full judgment

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

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 355/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 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 ITA Nos.352 to 357/Bang/2020 P…

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 354/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 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 ITA Nos.352 to 357/Bang/2020 P…

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 353/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 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 ITA Nos.352 to 357/Bang/2020 P…

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 352/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 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 ITA Nos.352 to 357/Bang/2020 P…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Conc Shade Constructions Pvt Ltd, Chikkamangalur

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 301/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Conc Shade Construction Pvt Ltd, Chikkamangalur

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Conc Shade Construction Pvt Ltd, Chikkamangalur

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 299/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…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…

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy, by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2006-07 to 2009-10 Late Smt. K. Leelavathy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner By L/R Shri M. Thimmegowda, of Income Tax, # F-113, Central Chambers, Central Circle 1(3), 2-C & D, 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Bengaluru. Gandhinagar, Bangalore – 560 009. PAN: ABRPL 1523B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.03.2022 Date of Pronounceme…

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2006-07 to 2009-10 Late Smt. K. Leelavathy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner By L/R Shri M. Thimmegowda, of Income Tax, # F-113, Central Chambers, Central Circle 1(3), 2-C & D, 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Bengaluru. Gandhinagar, Bangalore – 560 009. PAN: ABRPL 1523B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.03.2022 Date of Pronounceme…

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2006-07 to 2009-10 Late Smt. K. Leelavathy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner By L/R Shri M. Thimmegowda, of Income Tax, # F-113, Central Chambers, Central Circle 1(3), 2-C & D, 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Bengaluru. Gandhinagar, Bangalore – 560 009. PAN: ABRPL 1523B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.03.2022 Date of Pronounceme…

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2006-07 to 2009-10 Late Smt. K. Leelavathy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner By L/R Shri M. Thimmegowda, of Income Tax, # F-113, Central Chambers, Central Circle 1(3), 2-C & D, 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Bengaluru. Gandhinagar, Bangalore – 560 009. PAN: ABRPL 1523B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.03.2022 Date of Pronounceme…

Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 358/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 68

…one in favour of the assessee shall be adopted and our attention was drawn to the decisions in 'Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Others' [(1997) 226 ITR 625], 'Manish Maheshwari v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another' [(2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC)] and Indore Construction P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax' [(2007) 289 ITR 341] and canvassed for the said proposition. But since we are of the clear opinion that the assessee was entitled to get the deduction of the amounts as provided under Sec.36(1)(va) only if the amounts so received from the employee was paid within the due date as…

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2223/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

…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…

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2222/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

…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…

Shri Anand Nadig, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 578/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

…78/Bang/2018 Page 7 of 21 initiated or requisition is made u/s.132A. Thirdly, the provisions of section 153C are analogous to section 158BD of the Act. Therefore, decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 159 Taxman 258/289 ITR 341 would also apply where assessment is to be made u/s. 153C. As per the aforesaid decision, the precondition for invoking jurisdiction for issue of notice u/s. 153C is that the AO must "record satisfaction" as to the seized material 'belongs to' the third person i.e. assessee. 14.2.2 Under s. 153C as applicable to the relevant assessment year in ap…

Shri Anand Nadig, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 577/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

…78/Bang/2018 Page 7 of 21 initiated or requisition is made u/s.132A. Thirdly, the provisions of section 153C are analogous to section 158BD of the Act. Therefore, decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 159 Taxman 258/289 ITR 341 would also apply where assessment is to be made u/s. 153C. As per the aforesaid decision, the precondition for invoking jurisdiction for issue of notice u/s. 153C is that the AO must "record satisfaction" as to the seized material 'belongs to' the third person i.e. assessee. 14.2.2 Under s. 153C as applicable to the relevant assessment year in ap…

Shri Anand Nadig, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 576/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

…78/Bang/2018 Page 7 of 21 initiated or requisition is made u/s.132A. Thirdly, the provisions of section 153C are analogous to section 158BD of the Act. Therefore, decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 159 Taxman 258/289 ITR 341 would also apply where assessment is to be made u/s. 153C. As per the aforesaid decision, the precondition for invoking jurisdiction for issue of notice u/s. 153C is that the AO must "record satisfaction" as to the seized material 'belongs to' the third person i.e. assessee. 14.2.2 Under s. 153C as applicable to the relevant assessment year in ap…

Shri Anand Nadig, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 575/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

…78/Bang/2018 Page 7 of 21 initiated or requisition is made u/s.132A. Thirdly, the provisions of section 153C are analogous to section 158BD of the Act. Therefore, decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 159 Taxman 258/289 ITR 341 would also apply where assessment is to be made u/s. 153C. As per the aforesaid decision, the precondition for invoking jurisdiction for issue of notice u/s. 153C is that the AO must "record satisfaction" as to the seized material 'belongs to' the third person i.e. assessee. 14.2.2 Under s. 153C as applicable to the relevant assessment year in ap…

M/S Shivalika Realities P Ltd, Indore vs. ITO 5(1), Indore

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

ITA 95/IND/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

…der section 153C has not been followed by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, assessment has become invalid. The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in following the ratio laid down by the Supreme court in the case of Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 341 / 159 Taxman 258 wherein it has been held that if the procedure laid down in section 158BD is not followed, block assessment proceedings would be illegal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly observed that the provisions of section 153C are exactly similar to the provisions of section 158BD in block assessment proceedings. Thus, considering t…

M/S Shivalika Realities P Ltd, Indore vs. ITO 5(1), Indore

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

ITA 94/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

…der section 153C has not been followed by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, assessment has become invalid. The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in following the ratio laid down by the Supreme court in the case of Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 341 / 159 Taxman 258 wherein it has been held that if the procedure laid down in section 158BD is not followed, block assessment proceedings would be illegal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly observed that the provisions of section 153C are exactly similar to the provisions of section 158BD in block assessment proceedings. Thus, considering t…