← 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

DCIT Cent. Cir-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2218/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1970/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-4(2) Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Room No.1918, Air India Vs. 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Building, Nariman Point- Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), 400021. Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2218/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) Dcit Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1918, Air India Raheja Tower, Plot No. C-30, Vs. Building, Nariman Point- Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Kurla 400021. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack1949H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Smt. Neelam Shukla (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 08.09.2021 For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 14A

earned income by way of house property income, business income and income from other sources during the year under consideration. On 30.11.2017, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out upon the K Raheja Group including 2 ITA. No.2218/Mum/2021 A.Y.2018-19 K. Raheja

K Raheja Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir-4(2), `Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1970/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1970/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-4(2) Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Room No.1918, Air India Vs. 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Building, Nariman Point- Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), 400021. Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2218/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) Dcit Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1918, Air India Raheja Tower, Plot No. C-30, Vs. Building, Nariman Point- Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Kurla 400021. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack1949H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Smt. Neelam Shukla (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 08.09.2021 For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 14A

earned income by way of house property income, business income and income from other sources during the year under consideration. On 30.11.2017, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out upon the K Raheja Group including 2 ITA. No.2218/Mum/2021 A.Y.2018-19 K. Raheja

Devendra Rajnikant Ladhani, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circ;E-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 178/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadala & Shri Gagan Goyaldevendra Rajnikant Ladhani, 1, Om Building, Opp. Rishi Vihar Complex, Bolinj Road, Virar (W), District-Palghar-401303 Pan: Abfpl5079C ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16X, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi Respondent By : Sh. Nimesh Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Dated 30.12.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.3,82,84,000/- Made U/S 69A Of The It. Act, 1961 As Unexplained Money On Account Of Cash Found At The Residence & From The Bank Lockers Of The Appellant During The Course Of 2 Ita No. 178/Mum/2021- Devendra Ranjikant Ladhani

For Appellant: Sh. Subhodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Sh. Nimesh Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Companies, the prominent ones being M/s Maad Relaters and Infra Ltd. & M/s Rashmi Ameya Developers Housing & State Relaters Pvt. Ltd. (RADHE). A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 31.07.2014 at Maad group of cases and the resident of the appellant/assessee ... under: 3 ITA No. 178/Mum/2021- Devendra Ranjikant Ladhani “(4) The authorised officer may, during the course of the search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing

Ramniwas Choyal, Surat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 360/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 316, Pancharatna Pratishtha Bhavan Opera House, Mumbai -400004 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcm8875H (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mahavir M. Jain V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber M.K. Road, Churchgate Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Ahnpj4936G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ramniwas Choyal V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber Pratishtha Bhavan Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Aknpc1507H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

360/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/s. Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., & others 5. Assessing Officer further observed that to recapitulate the facts revealed during the search and seizure action in the case of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and his associates. It has been clearly revealed by the circumstantial evidences and other material facts ... coincidence that almost all entities of this Group viz. Prime Star, Pushpak Gems, Pankaj Exports, and many other identified in the search and seizure operations, find a common pattern of response, presentation of accounts, common auditors, common Authorised Representative, common inter-connected transacting entities and identical nature of businesses

Mahavir M. Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 352/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 316, Pancharatna Pratishtha Bhavan Opera House, Mumbai -400004 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcm8875H (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mahavir M. Jain V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber M.K. Road, Churchgate Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Ahnpj4936G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ramniwas Choyal V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber Pratishtha Bhavan Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Aknpc1507H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

360/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/s. Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., & others 5. Assessing Officer further observed that to recapitulate the facts revealed during the search and seizure action in the case of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and his associates. It has been clearly revealed by the circumstantial evidences and other material facts ... coincidence that almost all entities of this Group viz. Prime Star, Pushpak Gems, Pankaj Exports, and many other identified in the search and seizure operations, find a common pattern of response, presentation of accounts, common auditors, common Authorised Representative, common inter-connected transacting entities and identical nature of businesses

Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 329/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 316, Pancharatna Pratishtha Bhavan Opera House, Mumbai -400004 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcm8875H (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mahavir M. Jain V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber M.K. Road, Churchgate Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Ahnpj4936G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ramniwas Choyal V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber Pratishtha Bhavan Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Aknpc1507H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

360/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/s. Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., & others 5. Assessing Officer further observed that to recapitulate the facts revealed during the search and seizure action in the case of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and his associates. It has been clearly revealed by the circumstantial evidences and other material facts ... coincidence that almost all entities of this Group viz. Prime Star, Pushpak Gems, Pankaj Exports, and many other identified in the search and seizure operations, find a common pattern of response, presentation of accounts, common auditors, common Authorised Representative, common inter-connected transacting entities and identical nature of businesses

Dr. P. Dayananda Pai, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 150/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2005-06 Dr. P Dayananda Pai, Vs. Dcit, 10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex, Circle – 2(2), Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Abapp 4418 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 9.12.2019 Of Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. He Is Also Referred To As “Pdp” In This Order. He Is In The Business Of Real Estate For Over Four Decades. He Carried On Business Of Real Estate In His Individual Capacity. From Ay 95-96 He Transferred All The Rights In Properties Under Various Agreements To A Partnership Firm “M/S.P.Dayanand Pai”, Vide Deed Of Partnership Dated 1-4-1994. In This Firm Mr.P.Dayanand Pai & His Brother Mr.P.Satish & 9 Other Individuals Were Partners. Thereafter By A Deed Of Partnership Dated 9.6.2000 The Firm “M/S.P.Dayanada Pai” Merged Its Business With Another Partnership Firm “M/S.Canara Housing Development Company” (Hereinafter Page 2 Of 39

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

Assessee. The details as to how this return of income was processed by the Revenue is not available. 4. There was a search and seizure proceeding carried out by the revenue u/s.132 of the Act, in the case of one Sri.H.Nagaraj on 6.1.2009. Based on the evidence found and seized ... addition of Rs.8,326 was the difference in balancing figure in the capital account of the Assessee. 5. There was another Search and Seizure carried out by the competent authority under Sec.132 of the Act, in the residence of Smt.Adlene Kagoo (hereinafter called AK), who is stated