← All Phrases

“Section 132(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 132Section 132(1)(a)61 judgments

SRS IT SOLUTIONS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3636/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2008-09
Section 132(1)(A)Section 140Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153C

{ "clean_text": "1\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI\nBEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, THIRUVALLUR

ITA 237/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita. Nos.:234, 235, 236 & 237/Chny/2025 & Co Nos.59, 60, 61 & 62/Chny/2025 (In Ita Nos. 234, 235, 236 & 237/Chny/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Jaya Educational Trust, Income Tax, Vs. No.8, Krishnapuram, Ii Main Road, Central Circle -1(2), Thiruninravur, Chennai. Thiruvallur – 602 024. [Pan:Aaatj-0369-D] (अपीलाथ#/Appellant) ($%थ#/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. Department By : Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T
Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 250Section 40A(3)

Appeals) failed to appreciate that the search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the search is conducted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, THIRUVALLUR

ITA 236/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita. Nos.:234, 235, 236 & 237/Chny/2025 & Co Nos.59, 60, 61 & 62/Chny/2025 (In Ita Nos. 234, 235, 236 & 237/Chny/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Jaya Educational Trust, Income Tax, Vs. No.8, Krishnapuram, Ii Main Road, Central Circle -1(2), Thiruninravur, Chennai. Thiruvallur – 602 024. [Pan:Aaatj-0369-D] (अपीलाथ#/Appellant) ($%थ#/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. Department By : Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T
Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 250Section 40A(3)

Appeals) failed to appreciate that the search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the search is conducted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, THIRUVALLUR

ITA 235/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita. Nos.:234, 235, 236 & 237/Chny/2025 & Co Nos.59, 60, 61 & 62/Chny/2025 (In Ita Nos. 234, 235, 236 & 237/Chny/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Jaya Educational Trust, Income Tax, Vs. No.8, Krishnapuram, Ii Main Road, Central Circle -1(2), Thiruninravur, Chennai. Thiruvallur – 602 024. [Pan:Aaatj-0369-D] (अपीलाथ#/Appellant) ($%थ#/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. Department By : Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T
Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 250Section 40A(3)

Appeals) failed to appreciate that the search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the search is conducted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, THIRUVALLUR

ITA 234/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita. Nos.:234, 235, 236 & 237/Chny/2025 & Co Nos.59, 60, 61 & 62/Chny/2025 (In Ita Nos. 234, 235, 236 & 237/Chny/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Jaya Educational Trust, Income Tax, Vs. No.8, Krishnapuram, Ii Main Road, Central Circle -1(2), Thiruninravur, Chennai. Thiruvallur – 602 024. [Pan:Aaatj-0369-D] (अपीलाथ#/Appellant) ($%थ#/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. Department By : Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T
Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 250Section 40A(3)

Appeals) failed to appreciate that the search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the search is conducted

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

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

ITA 26/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 250

ground that:-\n\ni.\nThe search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and\nultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the\nAct;\n\nii.\nThat the search is conducted not on the basis of any prior\ninformation or material inducing any belief ... niii.\nThe learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden\nof proving that there is a valid search under section 132 (1)\n(a), (b) & (c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of\njurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the\nAct is untenable

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

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

ITA 25/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 153ASection 250

order on the ground that:-\ni.\nThe search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and\nultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the\nAct;\nii.\nThat the search is conducted not on the basis of any prior\ninformation or material inducing ... niii.\nThe learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden\nof proving that there is a valid search under section 132 (1)\n(a), (b) & (c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of\njurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the\nAct is untenable

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 24/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

order on the ground that:- i. The search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act; ii. That the search is conducted not on the basis of any prior information or material inducing ... learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid search under section 132 (1) (a), (b) & (c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law. iv. The learned assessing

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 23/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 153ASection 250

ground that:-\n\ni.\nThe search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and\nultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the\nAct;\n\nii.\nThat the search is conducted not on the basis of any prior\ninformation or material inducing any belief ... niii.\nThe learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden\nof proving that there is a valid search under section 132 (1)\n(a), (b) & (c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of\njurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the\nAct is untenable

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 22/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

order on the ground that:- i. The search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act; ii. That the search is conducted not on the basis of any prior information or material inducing ... learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid search under section 132 (1) (a), (b) & (c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law. iv. The learned assessing

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 21/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

order on the ground that:- i. The search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act; ii. That the search is conducted not on the basis of any prior information or material inducing ... learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid search under section 132 (1) (a), (b) & (c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law. iv. The learned assessing

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI vs. JASMINE BUILDMART PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 1268/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-27, 406, Elegance Tower-8, New Delhi. Jsola District Centre, New Delhi – 110 025. Pan: Aaccj5119J Co No.34/Del/2023 (Ita No.1268/Del/2020) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 406, Elegance Tower-8, Central Circle-27, Jsola District Centre, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 025. Pan: Aaccj5119J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca; Shri Anmol Jha, Advocate; & Ms Rinki Sharma, Itp. Revenue By : Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon Co No.34/Del/2020 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.44/Cit(A)(C)/Ggn/2014-15 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 24.03.2014 Passed U/S 153B(1)(B) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Central Circle-I, Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Has Also Filed The Cross Objections.

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 253

background to these appeal and CO is that by virtue of the authorization of the Director of Income-tax (Investigation). Chandigarh, under section 132(1)(A) in the case of the assessee, the residential as well as office premises of M/s Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Group of Cases were subjected

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 237/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

below are bad in law as the search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act on the facts of the case. f) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the search is conducted ... authorities below failed to discharge the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of search under section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act, its execution and ITA Nos.234 to 237/Bang/2020 Page 3 of 41 its completion in accordance with law to render the proceedings valid under

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 236/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

below are bad in law as the search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act on the facts of the case. f) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the search is conducted ... authorities below failed to discharge the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of search under section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act, its execution and ITA Nos.234 to 237/Bang/2020 Page 3 of 41 its completion in accordance with law to render the proceedings valid under

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

ITA 235/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2009-10
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

below are bad in law as the\nsearch initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and\nultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of\nthe Act on the facts of the case.\nf) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the search\nis conducted

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 234/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

below are bad in law as the search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act on the facts of the case. f) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the search is conducted ... authorities below failed to discharge the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of search under section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act, its execution and ITA Nos.234 to 237/Bang/2020 Page 3 of 41 its completion in accordance with law to render the proceedings valid under

PROTEIN ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 591/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

from the available balance. 22. The ld. AR for the assessee argues that this search did not meet the legal requirement prescribed under section 132(1)(a), (b), or (c) of the Act. As there was no refusal to provide documents, no intention to hide information, and no undisclosed income ... assessee and few entities out of 16 bank accounts of different assessee. Thus, in the given case, the precondition for search under section 132(1) of the Act i.e. is in possession of undisclosed assets, is likely not produce books of account if summoned or is concealing income or assets

PROTEIN ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 590/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

from the available balance. 22. The ld. AR for the assessee argues that this search did not meet the legal requirement prescribed under section 132(1)(a), (b), or (c) of the Act. As there was no refusal to provide documents, no intention to hide information, and no undisclosed income ... assessee and few entities out of 16 bank accounts of different assessee. Thus, in the given case, the precondition for search under section 132(1) of the Act i.e. is in possession of undisclosed assets, is likely not produce books of account if summoned or is concealing income or assets

PROTEIN ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 589/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

from the available balance. 22. The ld. AR for the assessee argues that this search did not meet the legal requirement prescribed under section 132(1)(a), (b), or (c) of the Act. As there was no refusal to provide documents, no intention to hide information, and no undisclosed income ... assessee and few entities out of 16 bank accounts of different assessee. Thus, in the given case, the precondition for search under section 132(1) of the Act i.e. is in possession of undisclosed assets, is likely not produce books of account if summoned or is concealing income or assets

PROTEIN ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 588/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

from the available balance. 22. The ld. AR for the assessee argues that this search did not meet the legal requirement prescribed under section 132(1)(a), (b), or (c) of the Act. As there was no refusal to provide documents, no intention to hide information, and no undisclosed income ... assessee and few entities out of 16 bank accounts of different assessee. Thus, in the given case, the precondition for search under section 132(1) of the Act i.e. is in possession of undisclosed assets, is likely not produce books of account if summoned or is concealing income or assets

Showing 1–20 of 61 · Page 1 of 4