← All Phrases

“search and seizure”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 13210,164 judgments

The decision most relied on for search and seizure is CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (374 ITR 645), cited in 1,823 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on search and seizure

CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.
374 ITR 645 · 2015 · High Court
1,823
citing judgments

In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. DCIT
137 ITD 287 · 2012 · ITAT
907
citing judgments

In non-abated assessments, the Assessing Officer can make additions under section 153A based on books of accounts or documents found during a search but not produced during the original assessment, provided such material is incriminating.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal
290 CTR 263 · 2016 · High Court
583
citing judgments

Assessment based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act requires the statement to be relatable to incriminating material or evidence found during the search, especially when considering Section 158BB(1) which restricts computation of undisclosed income to evidence found during search.

CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia
352 ITR 493 · 2013 · High Court
537
citing judgments

Section 153A can be invoked to reassess income for all years under consideration prior to a search, even if returns for those years were processed under Section 143(1)(a). The Assessing Officer has the power to reassess total income in such cases without fetters.

E.N. Gopakumar v. CIT
75 Taxmann.com 215 · 2016 · High Court
428
citing judgments

In search assessments conducted under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, additions to the assessee's income can be made even in the absence of incriminating material found during a search operation conducted under Section 132.

DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma
159 Taxmann.com 179 · 2024 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Loose sheets of paper containing jottings, not shown to be part of regularly maintained books of accounts, do not constitute incriminating material for initiating assessment under section 153C. The satisfaction note required for 153C proceedings must specify the assessment year to which the alleged incriminating material belongs.

Kishore Kumar v. Deputy Commissioner of Income
52 Taxmann.com 449 · 2014 · High Court
255
citing judgments

An unretracted admission of undisclosed income made by an assessee in a sworn statement under Section 132(4) during a search and seizure operation forms a valid basis for making additions and levying tax, especially when no books of accounts are maintained.

Judgments citing search and seizure

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1823/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiady. Cit (Central Circle)-3(3) M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited 4Th Floor, Welspun House, Room No. 404, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400 051 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Delisle Road, S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aabcm 4107 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Harsh Kapadia & Shri Ajay Nagpal Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeal By The Department, Arises Out Of Order Dated 17.01.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai, Pertaining To A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Department Has Challenged The Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.23,47,354/-, Being Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) On Account Of Alleged Non-Genuine Expenses.

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 37(1)

book loss 2 Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Welspun Enterprises Limited of Rs.83,97,776/- u/s. 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out on the assessee on 30.06.2017. Pursuant to the search action, proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act were ... party, by name, Mr. Mohd Salim, S/o. Mohd. AinuddinHoque. Referring to the statement of employees recorded in course of search and seizure operation, the A.O. observed, though, the expenditure was claimed towards sub-contract expenses and purchases, however, they were unable to furnish authenticating documentary evidences in support. Based

Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur, Central Revenue Building vs. Mohammad Ibrahim, Prop Janta Sanitation

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 698/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 698/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23) Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1), Vs Mohammand Ibrahim, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Ring Road No. 1, Pachpedinaka Raipur- 492001, C.G. Raipur- 492001, C.G. Pan: Aigpm6755J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: The Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.09.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 69C

Assessing Officer on account of accommodation entry benefitted from M/s. Continental Seeds & Chemicals Ltd., without appreciating the material and evidences gathered during the search and seizure operation in the case of Shri Praveen Rastogi and his group and the statement of Shri Praveen Rastogi, the Director of M/s continental Seeds

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa vs. Bagkiya Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Goa

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms

ITA 148/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2017-2018 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Sf-3, Building No.-3. Techno Cidade, Chogam Rd., Alto Porvorim, Goa-403521. Pan: Aaccb9382M . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: None For The Respondent Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Revenue’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(2) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges The Order Dt. 29/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Wheeled From The Order Dt. 25/08/2021 Passed U/S 147 Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18.[‘Ay’]

For Appellant: None for theFor Respondent: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127(2)Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(2)

notice of the Board where assessees have claimed that they have been forced to confess undisclosed income during the course of the search and seizure and survey operation. Such confession, if not based on credible evidence, are taken/retracted by the concerned assessees while filing return of income. In these ITAT ... Panaji Page 37 of 39 ACIT Vs M/s Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 148/PAN/2025 AY: 2017-18 circumstances, confession during the search and seizure and survey operation do not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, advised that there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence