← 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

ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Raichand Parasmal Chokshi, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) Raichand Parasmal Chokshi 405, Piramal Chambers, 305, Ashirwad Building, Lalabaug 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Vs. Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400004. (Pan: Aaapc6486C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) Raichand Parasmal Chokshi 405, Piramal Chambers, Huf Lalabaug 305, Ashirwad Building, Mumbai 400012 Vs. 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai 400004. (Pan: Aaahr1005A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Umang Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are In The Case Of An Individual & Huf Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- Ay 2017-18 24/1060184522(1) Dated 29.01.2024 For Individual & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064573907(1), Dated 02.05.2024 For The Huf, Passed Against The Assessment Orders By Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 29.05.2023 & 21.04.2023, Respectively For Individual & Huf For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Appeal In Ita No. 1486/Mum/2024 Is By The Individual & That In Ita No. 3374/Mum/2024 Is By The Huf With The Present Individual As Its Karta. Common Issue Is Involved In Both The Appeals By The Revenue, Raising Identical Grounds Except For Variation In The Quantum Of Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer. Accordingly, Grounds Taken By The Revenue In The Case Of Individual In Ita No. 1486/Mum/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Umang Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 144Section 68

facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that during the search and seizure action, Shri Naresh Manakchand Jain, Director of M/s. Monotype India Ltd in his sworn statement that this penny stock was used for manipulation

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Kinetic Communications Limited, Pune, Maharashtra

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4991/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs Kinetic Communications Ltd., Central Circle-15, G-92, D-Iii Block, Midc, New Delhi. Chinchwad, Pune. Pan: Aaack7632B Co No.18/Del/2025 (Ita No.4991/Del/2024) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kinetic Communications Ltd., Vs. Acit, G-92, D-Iii Block, Midc, Central Circle-15, Chinchwad, New Delhi. Pune. Pan: Aaack7632B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pawan Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 16.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi Co No.18/Del/2025 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.10641/2014-15 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 28.03.2023 Passed U/S 153C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)

assessee has filed the Cross Objection. 2. The assessee had filed original return on 25.09.2015 and a search and seizure operation was conducted on 02.01.2020 in Sushen Mohan Gupta group of cases. In the said search, premises of M/s ZF Steering Gear India Ltd. was also covered where some documents