← 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 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 617/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.617/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, No. 4, 10Th Street, Nandanam, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan: Aakps5124P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mohan Das, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 6 Grounds Of Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Mohan Das, CA
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

assessee is an individual and filed return of income admitting total income of ₹.2,44,55,310/-. According to the Assessing Officer, a search and seizure action was conducted in the premises of Shri Akash Bhaskaran under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The assessee ... party premises and seized during the course of the second search or not. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was initiated in the case of Shri Akash Bhaskaran, who is running a business concern

Agroha Fincap Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8305/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.8305/िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2011-12) Agroha Fincap Ltd., C-51, Mahendru Enclave, G.T. Karnal Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 110033 Pan: Aaaca-8075-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent R.No. 398B, Cr Building, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 20.08.2019, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Shri Suraj Gupta, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That He Is Not Pressing Legal Ground Raised In Ground No. 2 Of Appeal. Thus, The Primary Issue For Adjudication In Appeal By The Assessee Is Addition Of Rs.25,00,000/- U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On Account Of Share Capital/Share Premium Received From M/S. Blue Bell Finance Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, SR.DR
Section 148Section 68Section 69C

received from M/s. Blue Bell Finance Ltd. 2 2.1. Narrating facts of the case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that a search and seizure operation was carried out in the case of Jain Brothers (Shri Virender Jain & Shri Surender Kumar Jain) and there group concerns ... case of M/s. Blue Bell Finance Ltd. has accepted the income returned by the assessee after search and seizure operation. The income of said company was assessed at loss of Rs.15,967/-. Once the Revenue has accepted return of M/s. Blue Bell Finance Ltd., the identity of the investor

Santanu Roy, ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata vs. Ems Polyset Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2194/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.2193&2194/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2112-13 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata.…………………….…………….……....Appellant Vs. Ems Polyset Pvt. Ltd………………………………………….…..... Respondent Gobinda Niwas, Jyangra, Baguihati, Kolkata - 700059. [Pan: Aaace5551F] Appearances By: Shri Susanta Saha, Acit- Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrato Rai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 18, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By The Cit(Appeals) Addl/Jcit(A), Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Ita No.2193/Kol/2024 For Narration Of Facts. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 27 Days In Filing Both The Present Appeals. The Revenue Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause. We

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

income of Rs.3,22,352/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, an information was received that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was caried out in the office premises of Shri Sanjiu Kumar Singh, a well- known entry operator

ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata vs. Ems Polyset Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2193/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.2193&2194/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2112-13 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata.…………………….…………….……....Appellant Vs. Ems Polyset Pvt. Ltd………………………………………….…..... Respondent Gobinda Niwas, Jyangra, Baguihati, Kolkata - 700059. [Pan: Aaace5551F] Appearances By: Shri Susanta Saha, Acit- Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrato Rai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 18, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By The Cit(Appeals) Addl/Jcit(A), Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Ita No.2193/Kol/2024 For Narration Of Facts. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 27 Days In Filing Both The Present Appeals. The Revenue Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause. We

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

income of Rs.3,22,352/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, an information was received that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was caried out in the office premises of Shri Sanjiu Kumar Singh, a well- known entry operator

Suresh Nag Yadav, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 1, Ranchi

In the result, ITA No. 08/RAN/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.08 To 12/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2016-17 Suresh Nag Yadav……………......................…...........................……….……Appellant Yadav Bhawan, Karatoli, Jharkhand - 834008. [Pan: Aafpy5311D] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri V. K. Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 13, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 28.11.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures & Assessment Years, All The Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We Proceed To Deal With Ita No. 08/Ran/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 & Our Findings Therein Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.37,56,390. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On 29.11.2018 At The Business & Residential Premises Of The Assessee. In Consequence Thereof, A Notice Under Section 153A Of The Act Was Issued. In Response, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.05.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.38,56,390/-, Including Additional Income Of Rs.1,00,000 Disclosed

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 declaring a total income of Rs.37,56,390. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 29.11.2018 at the business and residential premises of the assessee. In consequence thereof, a notice

Suresh Nag Yadav, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, ITA No. 08/RAN/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 12/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.08 To 12/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2016-17 Suresh Nag Yadav……………......................…...........................……….……Appellant Yadav Bhawan, Karatoli, Jharkhand - 834008. [Pan: Aafpy5311D] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri V. K. Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 13, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 28.11.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures & Assessment Years, All The Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We Proceed To Deal With Ita No. 08/Ran/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 & Our Findings Therein Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.37,56,390. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On 29.11.2018 At The Business & Residential Premises Of The Assessee. In Consequence Thereof, A Notice Under Section 153A Of The Act Was Issued. In Response, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.05.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.38,56,390/-, Including Additional Income Of Rs.1,00,000 Disclosed

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 declaring a total income of Rs.37,56,390. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 29.11.2018 at the business and residential premises of the assessee. In consequence thereof, a notice