← 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

Vidarbha Mining Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1265/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S., Am Vidarbha Mining Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income 703, Samarpan Complex, Near Mirador Tax, Circle-1(3)(2), Mumbai Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Hotel, New Link Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400099. Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Rd, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaccv2506M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Gaurav Kabra Respondent By : Shri. G. J. Ninawe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A) For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal & Has Also Filed Additional Grounds Which Are As Follows: Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Learned Assessing Officer In Reopening The Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act, Without Appreciating The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case. Vidarbha Mining Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit

For Appellant: Shri. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri. G. J. Ninawe, SR. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

present case was certainly a search action which was undertaken by the Revenue against one Shilpi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and in such search and seizure action, materials were seized and such materials were further explored and enquired. Such enquiry revealed significant information in regard to M/s. Green Valley Gems ... find that the record would indicate something which is not on the basis of such new materials gathered under the search and seizure action under Section 132. If this be the case, then certainly the provisions of Section 153C read with Section 153A would be applicable, as held

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

case of the assessee, the residential as well as office premises of M/s Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Group of Cases were subjected to search and seizure operations on 09.11.2011. Assessment jurisdiction over the assessee was transferred to the circle the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurgaon vide order