Pr. CIT v. Sarwar Agency P. Ltd.

397 ITR 400High Court2017#1193 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Sarwar Agency P. Ltd. authority for?

An assessment initiated under Section 153C against a person other than the searched person is invalid if the Assessing Officer of the searched person fails to record a proper satisfaction note as mandated by the section. The procedural requirement of a satisfaction note is crucial for the validity of such an assessment.

95

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. Sarwar Agency P. Ltd. · Sarwar Agency · Section 153C · Section 132 · satisfaction note · validity of assessment · assessment of other person · block period · search assessment · documents seized

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Sarwar Agency P. Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1103/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, The Dcit, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Pammal, Chennai-600 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. The Dcit, Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Central Circle-1(2), 121, Shankar Nagar, Chennai. M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…and for the other person (assessee in this case), the period of re-assessment would be six assessment years preceding the year of search. For this, he referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Sarwar Agency Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 400) and argued that post the 2017 amendment, the calculation of period of 6/10 AYs must be reckoned from the date of search and not from when documents are either handed over to jurisdictional AO or when the satisfaction note in respect of non/searched person is drawn. According to the Ld. CIT DR therefore, having regard to the date of original s…

BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and

ITA 1044/CHNY/2023[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Dwarakesh, Ca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Chennai (Hereinafter In Short `The Ld.Cit(A)') Dated 26.07.2023 Passed For Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short `Ay') 2019-20.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…on and for the other person (assessee in this case), the period of re-assessment would be six assessment years preceding the year of search. For this, he referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Sarwar Agency Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 400) and argued that post the 2017 amendment, the calculation of period of 6/10 AYs must be reckoned from the date of search and not from when documents are either handed over to jurisdictional AO or when the satisfaction note in respect of non/searched person is drawn. According to the Ld. CIT DR therefore, having regard to the date of original sear…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA vs. APPLE COMMODITIES LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2240/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2239 & 2240/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2010-11 बनाम Dcit Apple Commodities Ltd., 701-A, 7Th Floor, Vs. Central Circle-Ii, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gd-Itl Tower, Plot No.B- Sector-33, Noida, 08, Uttar Pradesh. Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan No.Aadca0300K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection Nos. 122 & 123/Del/2019 (In Ita Nos. 2239 To 2240/Del/2019) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 बनाम Apple Commodities Ltd., Dcit 701-A, 7Th Floor, Vs. Central Circle-Ii, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gd-Itl Tower, Plot No.B-08, Netaji Subhash Place, Sector-33, Noida, Pitampura, New Delhi. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Aadca0300K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153C

…T vs. Jasjit Singh 2023 (10) TMI 572 (SC). ii) CIT vs. RRK Securities Ltd. [2015] 62 taxmann.com 391 (Delhi) (Delhi High Court.) iii) ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2017] 81 Taxmann.com 260 (Delhi) (Delhi High Court). iv) CIT vs. Sarwar Agency P Ltd. 397 ITR 400 v) Apple Sponge and Power Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 7638/Del/2018 AY 2015-16) – ITAT, Delhi decision dated 25.5.2022. 8.1 The Ld. CIT(DR) strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that in this case date of search was 11.11.2014 and the Dat…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA vs. APPLE COMMODITIES LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2239/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2239 & 2240/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2010-11 बनाम Dcit Apple Commodities Ltd., 701-A, 7Th Floor, Vs. Central Circle-Ii, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gd-Itl Tower, Plot No.B- Sector-33, Noida, 08, Uttar Pradesh. Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan No.Aadca0300K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection Nos. 122 & 123/Del/2019 (In Ita Nos. 2239 To 2240/Del/2019) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 बनाम Apple Commodities Ltd., Dcit 701-A, 7Th Floor, Vs. Central Circle-Ii, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gd-Itl Tower, Plot No.B-08, Netaji Subhash Place, Sector-33, Noida, Pitampura, New Delhi. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Aadca0300K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153C

…T vs. Jasjit Singh 2023 (10) TMI 572 (SC). ii) CIT vs. RRK Securities Ltd. [2015] 62 taxmann.com 391 (Delhi) (Delhi High Court.) iii) ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2017] 81 Taxmann.com 260 (Delhi) (Delhi High Court). iv) CIT vs. Sarwar Agency P Ltd. 397 ITR 400 v) Apple Sponge and Power Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 7638/Del/2018 AY 2015-16) – ITAT, Delhi decision dated 25.5.2022. 8.1 The Ld. CIT(DR) strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that in this case date of search was 11.11.2014 and the Dat…

Showing 120 of 95 · Page 1 of 5

Pr. CIT v. Sarwar Agency P. Ltd. (397 ITR 400) — Cited in 95 Judgments | BharatTax