← 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

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Vishnu Mohan Reddy Chintapally, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2019-20 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Vishnu Mohan Reddy Income Tax, Chintapally, Villa No.A96, Central Circle – 2(3), Sy.No.25, Hill Ridge Villas, Hyderabad. Isb Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500032. Pan : Agbpc0373K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 24.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 245D(4)Section 271A

assessee had filed his original return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 31.08.2019 declaring total income of Rs.19,43,780/-. Search and seizure operation u/s 132 of I.T. Act was conducted in the case of M/s. KMR Estates and Builders Private Limited on 04.02.2019 wherein certain incriminating ... time and submitted the information called for. After verification of the information filed by the assessee, the assessment was finalized. 3.1. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted at M/S. KMR Estates and Builders Private Limited on 04.02.2019. During this operation, incriminating evidence

ACIT Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Kiran Infertility Centre Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 238/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-An Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.238/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kiran Infertility Income Tax, Centre (P) Ltd Central Circle 1(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabck6053F (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2024 आदेश/Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.03.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Providing Medical Services In Connection With Infertility Among Women/Men & Surrogacy Treatment & Is Deriving Income From Business & Other Sources. A Search & Page 1 Of 30

For Appellant: Advocate S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)

noted that the assessee is recognizing income from surrogacy from the clients once the surrogate child is born. However, during the course of search and seizure operation conducted on 10.01.2017 at the premises of the assessee company, it was found that even though in some of the cases the surrogate ... them as Advances from Surrogacy Clients in its Books of Accounts instead of recognizing them as revenue. Some of such cases identified during search and seizure operation are as follows: 7. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee was showing substantial "Advances from Surrogacy clients" of Rs 15.88 crores