← All Phrases

“search assessment”

Search & SeizureSection 153ASection 153A2,574 judgments

The decision most relied on for search assessment is CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), cited in 3,235 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on search assessment

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

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.

Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia
395 ITR 526 · 2017 · High Court
1,226
citing judgments

In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.

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.

PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.
397 ITR 82 · 2017 · High Court
786
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not by itself constitute incriminating material for making additions to income.

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court
689
citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

Judgments citing search assessment

Palladam Krishnasamy Ganeshwar, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1219/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Palladam Krishnasamy Ganeshwar Dcit बनाम/ 21,Shri Ganesa Textiles, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Vs. Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adfpg-6476-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69B

mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(Appeals)- 20, Chennai erred in confirming the search assessment in terms of section 153A of the Act in contra distinction to a search assessment as per section 153C of the Act without assigning ... proper reasons and justification and ought to have appreciated that the order of search assessment was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 3. The CIT(Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the assumption of jurisdiction in terms

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 996/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred in sustaining the search assessment in validating the additions forming part of the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals ... Chennai failed to appreciate that the order of search assessment. was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,74,68,278/- as undisclosed income from the business

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 995/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred in sustaining the search assessment in validating the additions forming part of the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals ... Chennai failed to appreciate that the order of search assessment. was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,74,68,278/- as undisclosed income from the business

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 994/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred in sustaining the search assessment in validating the additions forming part of the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals ... Chennai failed to appreciate that the order of search assessment. was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,74,68,278/- as undisclosed income from the business

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 993/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred in sustaining the search assessment in validating the additions forming part of the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals ... Chennai failed to appreciate that the order of search assessment. was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,74,68,278/- as undisclosed income from the business

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 992/CHNY/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred in sustaining the search assessment in validating the additions forming part of the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals ... Chennai failed to appreciate that the order of search assessment. was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,74,68,278/- as undisclosed income from the business

Srinivasan Charitable and Educational Trust, Perambalur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Trichy

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and appeal filed by the

ITA 31/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.28, 29, 30, 31, 55, 56 & 57/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2017-18 M/S. Srinivasan Charitable & Educational Trust, No.274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Perambalur-621 212. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aagts 1793 N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Acit, Central Circle-2, Trichy. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Trichy. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.522/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Srinivasan Charitable & (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Educational Trust, No.274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Perambalur-621 212. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aagts 1793 N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate Department By Mr. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.08.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 08.11.2024 आदेश / O R Der Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm

Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153C

centralization, notices under Section 153C were issued on 25.10.2019, leaving barely a period of a little over two months for completion of six search assessments. 26. The notice under Section 153C called upon the petitioner to file returns within a period of 8 days from service of the notice ... Once the PCIT has given his view that assessment is getting time barred on 31.12.2019, the AO was under pressure to complete the scrutiny/ search assessment but actually the time barring was 31.12.2020 in the present assessment years. It means that the Department from the beginning was under wrong notion