← 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, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Ramesh Kumar Prithani, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5763/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69

account of unexplained receipt of the same amount in ITA No. 5763/DEL/2018. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried out in the Brahmaputra Group of cases including the assessee on 28.09.2010 and various books of account and documents etc were ... Ramesh Kumar Prithani brother of my towards the amount mentioned in the document Annexure -1/ BA-9 r Page no.18 seized during the search and seizure on 28.09.2010 from my residence at C-5/60 Vasant Kun], New Delhi-l10070. 2. I have not received any amount from Mr. Ramesh

Dr. Neha Seth, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1634/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwin Chhag, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anurag Tripathi, Ld. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

information/ letter dated 27.03.2019 received from the office of Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.)- 2, Mumbai to the effect “that a search and seizure operation was carried out on many Industries and Hawala operators at various location across 2 Dr. Neha Seth the country on 19.03.2019 wherein it was found

Vijay Solvex Ltd, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar

In the result, the writ petition of Dr

ITA 357/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

Income-Tax (A)-IV, Jaipur has erred in sustaining the same.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members/concerns of Data Group, Alwar

Laxmi Narain Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Income Tax Act, 1961 at an income of Rs. 3,56,23,808/-. Later on a search and seizure action was undertaken in the case of the 3 ITA No. 100/JP/2023 Laxmi Narain Agarwal vs. ACIT assessee on 15.03.2012. The case was centralized with the Central Circle-03, Jaipur

E-Ally Consulting (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1230/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Jayant R. Bhatt, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 68

depicted by Profit & Loss Account was 14, 56,395/-. E-Ally Equities (India) Pvt. Ltd., E-Ally Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., 3. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out by the Investigation Unit in the case of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain on 01.10.2013. During

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Surat

ITA 453/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

made transactions with the entities of Rajendra Jain and Bhanwarlal Jain Group. The assessing officer was in possession of information that a search and seizure action has been carried out by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai on the Rajendra Jain and Bhanwarlal Jain Group, who were indulged in providing of accommodation ... business of issuing non-genuine purchase bills and also unsecured loan accommodation entries to various parties. It is thus established from the search and seizure action that the alleged concerns of Rajendra Jain and Bhanwarlal Jain Group are all paper companies/proprietorships and with no real business activities, operating solely with

Balmukund M Vaishnav, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat

ITA 205/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

being carried out by me in the above stated concerns namely M/s Marine Gems Pvt. Ltd. that why during the course of search and seizure action u/s 132 of the IT Act on 03.10.2013, the business premises were found vacant and not being in use. Those address have been kept

Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maydt vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Sagar, Sagar

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

ITA 12/JAB/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleasst. Commissioner Of Vs Shri Sarabjeet Singh Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mokha, 1112, Jabalpur. Pachpedi, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afxpm8245F Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 10Section 132Section 153A

appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that in the case of the assessee, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) was carried out alongwith the premises of “Mokha” and “Jamdar” groups. Consequent

J M Mhatre Infra Pvt Ltd., Panvel vs. ACIT, CC-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1670/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

material. Besides above, there were many other discrepancies as noted by the assessing officer. 6. The ld. AO noted that earlier there was search and seizure action in the case of the assessee on 07/02/2008, wherein he has found that assessee was not maintaining proper bills ... Total Rs. 14,91,18,830/- ================== 7. The ld. CIT (A) noted that in the case of the assessee another search search and seizure operation u/s.132 was conducted in the case of the assessee on 20/09/2017. During the course of said search, incriminating documents were found that assessee has been

J M Mhatre Infra Pvt Ltd., Panvel vs. ACIT, CC-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1669/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

material. Besides above, there were many other discrepancies as noted by the assessing officer. 6. The ld. AO noted that earlier there was search and seizure action in the case of the assessee on 07/02/2008, wherein he has found that assessee was not maintaining proper bills ... Total Rs. 14,91,18,830/- ================== 7. The ld. CIT (A) noted that in the case of the assessee another search search and seizure operation u/s.132 was conducted in the case of the assessee on 20/09/2017. During the course of said search, incriminating documents were found that assessee has been

J M Mhatre Infra Pvt Ltd., Panvel vs. ACIT, CC-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1667/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

material. Besides above, there were many other discrepancies as noted by the assessing officer. 6. The ld. AO noted that earlier there was search and seizure action in the case of the assessee on 07/02/2008, wherein he has found that assessee was not maintaining proper bills ... Total Rs. 14,91,18,830/- ================== 7. The ld. CIT (A) noted that in the case of the assessee another search search and seizure operation u/s.132 was conducted in the case of the assessee on 20/09/2017. During the course of said search, incriminating documents were found that assessee has been

J M Mhatre Infra Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1664/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

material. Besides above, there were many other discrepancies as noted by the assessing officer. 6. The ld. AO noted that earlier there was search and seizure action in the case of the assessee on 07/02/2008, wherein he has found that assessee was not maintaining proper bills ... Total Rs. 14,91,18,830/- ================== 7. The ld. CIT (A) noted that in the case of the assessee another search search and seizure operation u/s.132 was conducted in the case of the assessee on 20/09/2017. During the course of said search, incriminating documents were found that assessee has been

JCIT Circle-28(1), Delhi vs. Ajay Sharma, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1257/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Sonal Wadhera, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, CIT(DR)
Section 69

quite correct in making addition in the hands of assessee by observing that the contents and text of collaboration agreement seized during search and seizure operation is same and every word of both the agreements were identical. The ld. Senior DR also submitted that the receipt of payments made through ... observing that the contents and taxed of collaboration agreement furnished by the assessee and found and seized during the course search and seizure operation was similar and identical. The Assessing Officer also noted that the payment of Rs. 5 lakh through cheque was reflected at page no 79 of appraisal

Sh. Vikram Dhirani, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5610/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarvikram Dhirani, Vs. Dcit, D-1039, New Friends Colony, Central Circle-7, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahtpd6528L

For Appellant: Shri. P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 271(1)Section 271A

assessee to substantiate the manner in which undisclosed income was derived and kept as cash which was found and seized during the search and seizure operation and the assessee has no control over the manner of recording statement by the tax authority therefore in view of judgment

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jagannathdas Harichandmal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Raigarh

In the result appeal of revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 106/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.106/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Jagannathdas Harichandmal Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Sadar Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan: Aaccj2840G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, Dated 16.03.2022 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y.2012-13. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, While Holding Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of Act As Invalid & Void-Ab-Initio, The Ld. Cit(A) Completely Ignored The Fact That During The Course Of Survey, The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Burden In Establishing 'The Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions As Required U/S 68 Of The Income Tac Act. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Reassessment Proceeding Are Based On Fresh Facts/Information Rather Than Change Of Opinion. 2. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Confirmation Of Concealment Of Income/Disclosure Made In Statement Recorded During Survey U/S 133A Of Act Is An Information, Though Not Conclusive, Which May Be Used In Regular Assessment Or Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

power to examine a person on oath is specifically conferred on the authorised officer only u/s132(4) in the course of any search or seizure. Thus, the IT Act, whenever it thought fit and necessary to confer such power to examine a person on oath, as expressly provided ... supported with judicial pronouncements supra and Relevant circulars of CBDT 286/2/2003-IT (inv) dated 10.03.2003 regarding confession of the assessee during search and seizure and survey operations, if not based on credible evidence are later retracted do not serve any purpose. Another CBDT circular 286/98/2013-IT (Inv.11) 18.12.2014 was also relied upon

Rajesh Projects (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1406/DEL/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 154Section 249

Form No. 35 are that the assessee company filed its return for AY 2001-02 on 30.10.2001 declaring income of Rs. 89,760/-. Search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) was carried out on 07.02.2007 on its business premises. Consequently, notice under

Smt. Jaya Mogra, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 333/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10
Section 127Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

from the records is that the assessee is a partner in firm M/s Darpan and having income from tuition and bank deposits/NSC. Search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried out on 10.12.2010 at the residence as well as business premises of Deejay Neelam Marble

Rajesh Daga, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3, Pali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 572/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

sq.yds. for Rs.2,71,000. Payment for this was made through bank draft no.903872 dated 16.04.2008 drawn on erstwhile SBBJ Bank. 3.1 A search and seizure action under Section 132(1) was conducted by the department in the case of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta on 23.05.2013 wherein his statement

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. M G Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4464/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68

contrary to the provisions of section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried out u/s 132(1) of the Act in M/s. Apple Group of Companies (AGC) on 11.11.2014, wherein certain incriminating documents were found

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. M G Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4463/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68

contrary to the provisions of section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried out u/s 132(1) of the Act in M/s. Apple Group of Companies (AGC) on 11.11.2014, wherein certain incriminating documents were found