← 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Seh Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, cross objections of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2693/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshseh Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, F-88, Okhla Indl. Area, Central Circle-8, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagcs7537M Acit, Vs. Seh Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-8, F-88, Okhla Indl. Area, New Delhi Phase-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagcs7537M Co No. 9/Del/2022 (In Ita No.2693/Del/2017) (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit, Vs. Seh Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-8, F-88, Okhla Indl. Area, New Delhi Phase-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagcs7537M

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 7

mechanical approval is invalid and bad in law.” 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the act was carried out on Shahi Exports group, Span Group, U K Paints and Orris Group simultaneously ... also on the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 22.12.2006 on the subject of Search and Seizure Assessments. 6. At the outset, we find that the decision relied by the ld. DR of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court referred supra is factually distinguishable

M/S. Seh Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, cross objections of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2503/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshseh Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, F-88, Okhla Indl. Area, Central Circle-8, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagcs7537M Acit, Vs. Seh Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-8, F-88, Okhla Indl. Area, New Delhi Phase-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagcs7537M Co No. 9/Del/2022 (In Ita No.2693/Del/2017) (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit, Vs. Seh Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-8, F-88, Okhla Indl. Area, New Delhi Phase-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagcs7537M

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 7

mechanical approval is invalid and bad in law.” 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the act was carried out on Shahi Exports group, Span Group, U K Paints and Orris Group simultaneously ... also on the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 22.12.2006 on the subject of Search and Seizure Assessments. 6. At the outset, we find that the decision relied by the ld. DR of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court referred supra is factually distinguishable