← 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

M/S Mohit Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T., CC 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 2734/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, CIT–DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 250

assessment year 2010- 11, the assessee e-filed its return of income on 23.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s Mohit Diamond Group on 13.09.2011 and the assessee company was covered

Bhavani Gems P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -5, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 766/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Bhavani Gems Private Limited The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Dw–1370, G–Block West Core, Tax–5, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb9471D

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee falls. He submitted that assessee has submitted the accountant report no adjustment in earlier years are made and there is no search and seizure operations carried out. He submitted that in view of this, the reference to Transfer Pricing Officer should not have been made by the learned Assessing ... earlier assessment year and such adjustment has been upheld by the judicial authorities or is pending in appeal; and (c) where search and seizure or survey operations have been carried out under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and findings regarding transferpricing issues in respect of international transactions

M/S.Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-40, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1291/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Porwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 153ASection 153BSection 37Section 68

assessee. 2.2. On the other hand, Shri N. P. Singh, ld. CIT-DR, strongly defended the case of the Revenue by contending that search and seizure operation was validly carried out by the Department and the search warrants were also executed. The case was heard at length on 17/02/2016 ... other valuable article or thing under clause (iii) of sub-section (1). (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, ITA Nos. 1291 & 1292/Mum/2018

Apurva Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 8(2) (Erstwhile ACIT, Cent. Cir. - 45), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 720/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

under: Kishore Avarsekar (Father) Pushpa Avarsekar (Mother Abhijit Avarsekar (Son) Ashish Avarsekar (Son) Sweta (Daughter-in-Law) Apurva (Daughter-in-law) 3. A search and seizure action under section 132 of The Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out on 10/02/2012 at the premises

Kishore Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5469/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

under: Kishore Avarsekar (Father) Pushpa Avarsekar (Mother Abhijit Avarsekar (Son) Ashish Avarsekar (Son) Sweta (Daughter-in-Law) Apurva (Daughter-in-law) 3. A search and seizure action under section 132 of The Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out on 10/02/2012 at the premises

Ashish Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5468/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

under: Kishore Avarsekar (Father) Pushpa Avarsekar (Mother Abhijit Avarsekar (Son) Ashish Avarsekar (Son) Sweta (Daughter-in-Law) Apurva (Daughter-in-law) 3. A search and seizure action under section 132 of The Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out on 10/02/2012 at the premises

Pushpa Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5467/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

under: Kishore Avarsekar (Father) Pushpa Avarsekar (Mother Abhijit Avarsekar (Son) Ashish Avarsekar (Son) Sweta (Daughter-in-Law) Apurva (Daughter-in-law) 3. A search and seizure action under section 132 of The Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out on 10/02/2012 at the premises

Shweta Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5466/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

under: Kishore Avarsekar (Father) Pushpa Avarsekar (Mother Abhijit Avarsekar (Son) Ashish Avarsekar (Son) Sweta (Daughter-in-Law) Apurva (Daughter-in-law) 3. A search and seizure action under section 132 of The Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out on 10/02/2012 at the premises

Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

ITA 2979/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jasdeep Singh, CIT D.R
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 80I

necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are: the assessee is into the business of builders and developers. On the basis of search and seizure operation carried out under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on the assessee and its group companies

Karnataka Agrochemical Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-4(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

clarification of binding nature on the Departmental authorities. There is no dispute in this case that it is not a case where any search and seizure had taken place and it is also not a case of explaining deposits or loans taken through cash in past. The Hon'ble Supreme ... means persons who are not very intimately or very closely connected to the assessee as in the present case, as in a search and seizure operation under s. 132, all these persons are invariably searched together. The legislature was intending to curb tax evasion in a "search situation" and referred

Shanti Gold International Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Central RG-7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 143/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhshanti Gold International Vs. Dcit, Range – 7(3) Ltd, (Successor To Shanti 6Th Floor, Gold) Aayakar Bhavan, 5-D, 5Th Floor, 32, Mumbai – 400 020. Corporate Avenue, Mahal Industrial Estate, Off Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aatcs8748R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Amol B. Kirtane.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153B & 250 Of The Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Fenil Bhatt.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Amol B. Kirtane.DR
Section 133Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 153CSection 201

engaged in the business of trading, manufacturing of bullion and jewellery made from Shanti Gold International Ltd, Mumbai. precious metals. There was search and seizure of gold from two passengers flying to Mumbai from Raipur and summons u/s 133(1A) of the Act are issued and the statement was recorded

Shri Rameshkumar H. Jain, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1721/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amar Jit Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Rameshkumar H. Jain, Dcit, Bit Chawl No.3, Central Circle-2(4), Shop No.202, Mumbai – 400 020 Seth Mothi Sha, Vs. Love Lane, Mazgaon, Byculla, Mumbai – 400 010 Pan: Aaipj9005G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms.Ruchi Rathod, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh Bare, Sr. A.R. Cit Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2022 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 17.03.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Relevant To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Not Treating The Search Action As Illegal & Bad In Law. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Not Holding That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Is Bad, Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. The Said Proceeding Is Illegal, Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. 2.1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Arbitrarily The Addition Of Rs.22,31,445/- Being Not Treating The Jewelry Found In Locker As The Stock In Trade Of The Appellant. Addition

For Appellant: Ms.Ruchi Rathod, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare, Sr. A.R. CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)

grounds of appeal. The above grounds tire without prejudice to one another.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out by the Investigation Wing-4, Mumbai in case of M/s. Gold Sukh Safety Vaults ... locker. It was observed that the lockers were given on rent to hawala operators involving an illegal transfer of cash. Consequent to search and seizure action in case of Gold Sukh, the case of Shri Sanjay Kunmar Sharma was also covered by way of service of warrant under section

M/S.Mehulkumar Rameshkumar & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2223/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 2223, 2224 & 2225/Mum/2018 (A.Ys: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Mr.Sidharth Kothari.ARFor Respondent: Mr.T.Shankar .DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of money transfer and courier services. There was a search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of assessee and others. The assessee has filed the return of electronically

The Dy CIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Translands Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1166/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Cit-15(3)(1) M/S. Translands Infrastructure Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Developers P. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Jn-3, 14-15, Aashirward Chs, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Sector-9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Bairaga, CA
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

basis of borrowed satisfaction i.e. merely on the basis of information received in letter from Dy. DIT (Inv.) in respect of search and seizure u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt without application of his own mind before issue of notice

Shri. Pradip Chopra, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT (C) 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8064/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Pradip Chopra V. Pr. Cit – (C)-3 19Th Floor, Air India Building 23, Maheshwar Niketan Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aacpc0068J

For Appellant: Shri R.S. KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld. Pr.CIT”] dated 30.08.2019 for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2. Brief facts of the case are, Search and Seizure proceedings u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1963 (in short ‘Act’) was carried out in the case of 2 Shri Pradip Chopra Swastik Group ... Thereafter, return was processed 143(1) of the Act and the assessment was not selected for scrutiny. 9. He submitted, subsequently, Search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on Cosmos Group of cases on 24.09.2014. The assessee's residential premise was also covered

DCIT - 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Infotech & Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Bhanwarlal Jam. The assessment was reopened u/s.148 based on his statement and addition was made of Rs.50,00,000I-. The bench held: "The search and seizure action conducted by the Department in Bhanwarlal Jam Group took place on 03.10.2013. The loans taken by the assessee from Daksh Diamonds ... year 2006 was refunded in the year 2010. One has to respect the transactions which occurred more than three years before the search and seizure action by the Department. Thus the addition made by the AO without any documents is devoid of merit. Accordingly, we uphold the order

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Properties & Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3596/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Bhanwarlal Jam. The assessment was reopened u/s.148 based on his statement and addition was made of Rs.50,00,000I-. The bench held: "The search and seizure action conducted by the Department in Bhanwarlal Jam Group took place on 03.10.2013. The loans taken by the assessee from Daksh Diamonds ... year 2006 was refunded in the year 2010. One has to respect the transactions which occurred more than three years before the search and seizure action by the Department. Thus the addition made by the AO without any documents is devoid of merit. Accordingly, we uphold the order

M/S Rahul Raj Estates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Central - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3523/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 115JSection 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)

Income Tax Act (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) on 30.09.2012 wherein deemed total income u/s 115JB was at ₹.82,43,377/-. A search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act was carried out on 18.02.2014 in the case of Raj K Shah & Group at its office and residence of the key person ... dwell upon the issue as to whether the Pr. CIT was justified in passing the revision order u/s.263 of the Act:- (a) A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 18.02.2014 in the case of Raj K. Shah (Director of the Appellant Company

M/S Rahul Raj Estates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Central - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3522/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 115JSection 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)

Income Tax Act (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) on 30.09.2012 wherein deemed total income u/s 115JB was at ₹.82,43,377/-. A search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act was carried out on 18.02.2014 in the case of Raj K Shah & Group at its office and residence of the key person ... dwell upon the issue as to whether the Pr. CIT was justified in passing the revision order u/s.263 of the Act:- (a) A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 18.02.2014 in the case of Raj K. Shah (Director of the Appellant Company

DCIT Cent.Cir-8(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Farooq Ali Khan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3925/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 153A

provisions of Section 145 of the Income tax Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 24.02.2014 at the premises of Associate Group. The appellant was also searched ... that the appellant is a proprietor of M/s Kings Wood Suppliers, which is engaged in the business of trading in woods. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out on the Associate Group on 24/02/2014 and the Appellant was also covered during the course