← All Phrases

“satisfaction note”

Search & SeizureSection 153CSection 153C2,598 judgments

The decision most relied on for satisfaction note is CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (380 ITR 612), cited in 689 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on satisfaction note

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.

CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears
362 ITR 673 · 2014 · Supreme Court
528
citing judgments

The recording of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional prerequisite for assessments under Section 153C, and the six-year limitation period for such assessments is reckoned from the date this satisfaction is recorded.

ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
394 ITR 569 · 2017 · High Court
282
citing judgments

For initiating proceedings under Section 153C, seized documents must be incriminating and specifically relate to the assessment years for which assessments are reopened. A document relevant only for one year cannot be used to reopen other assessment years without being incriminating for those years.

PCIT v. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd.
465 ITR 101 · 2024 · High Court
277
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, the commencement point for calculating the six or ten assessment year block period is the date of issuing the Section 153C notice, or the date of the satisfaction note/handing over of books, as clarified by the first proviso to Section 153C(1).

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.

Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. ACIT
370 ITR 295 · 2015 · High Court
249
citing judgments

Section 153C of the Income-tax Act is invoked only when it is established that seized documents do not belong to the searched person, or if the searched person disclaims them; the satisfaction note must specifically indicate this fact.

Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT
289 ITR 341 · 2007 · Supreme Court
237
citing judgments

A block assessment proceeding under section 158BD is illegal if the procedure laid down in section 153C is not followed. The provisions of section 153C are similar to section 158BD in block assessment proceedings.

Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
367 ITR 112 · 2014 · High Court
225
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a specific satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the person searched, recorded prior to initiating proceedings, is a jurisdictional prerequisite, rendering its absence void. The approval function under Section 153D is administrative and does not require elaborate reasoning.

Judgments citing satisfaction note

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1053/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

despite several request made by the despite several request made by the assessee, the Department never the Department never furnished a copy of the satisfaction note which is essential for furnished a copy of the satisfaction note which is essential for furnished a copy of the satisfaction note which ... providing requesting for providing Grasim Industries Ltd. 18 ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. copy of satisfaction note. The Ld. Counsel further referred to page copy of satisfaction note. The Ld. Counsel further referred to page copy of satisfaction note. The Ld. Counsel

Jt CIT(OSD)-Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Vainavin Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 878/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Us The Ld Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Is Covered By Series Of Decision In The Group Case Of The Assessee & In Support, Decision Of Itat In The Case Of Jcit(Osd) Vs. Nabendu Engineering Pvt. Ltd Ita No. 875/Mum/2022 Dated 12.12.2022 Wherein, Exactly Similar Grounds Were Raised Except In Variations In Figures Of Share Application Money. In This Case Also The Assessee Has Filed Application Under Rule 27 Of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 Raising Legal Issue Contending That Before The Ld Cit (A) The Assessee Has Raised These Legal Grounds That The Addition Made By The Ao Are Not Based On Any Incriminating Material Or Evidence Found During The Course Of Search Relating To The Additions Made By The Ao & Is Beyond The Scope Of Section 153C Of The Act. The Said Grounds Read As Under:-

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 68

application money was not based on any incriminating material or documents found during the course of search and has no co- relation with the satisfaction note or material referred therein. Thus, the entire addition is without any incriminating material suggesting any undisclosed income. 7. Ld. CIT (A) has held that ... searched person) has been found during the course of search. 21. However, in the present case, despite being specifically requested to provide the satisfaction note, during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has failed to provide the same which establishes that he has failed to record any satisfaction before

Leena K. Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 151/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Surji ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

facts to held that bills found were criminating material to issue notice u/s 153C and in spite of the fact that no satisfaction notes has been issued in spite of being demanded in writing vide letter dated 23.10.2017. 5) The learned CIT(A) has been erred ... date of search. As per paragraph 5 of the Assessment Order the case of the Appellant was assigned to Central Circle on 22/09/2017 and satisfaction note was recorded on 28/09/2017. Therefore, even if 22/09/2017 is taken as the date of receiving books of accounts etc. and therefore, the relevant date

Asstt. CIT, Central Cir-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Amish A Modi, Mumbai

Appeal is hereby dismissed and at the same time grounds No

ITA 3243/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 153CSection 153D

routine manner. (d) Without granting a copy of the statement recorded on 14.01.2015 and thereby violating natural justice. (e) Without granting a copy of satisfaction note recorded by the AO 3. (a) In the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred

Amish Anantrai Modi, Mumbai vs. Dy Cti-CC-2(1), Mumbai

Appeal is hereby dismissed and at the same time grounds No

ITA 3060/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 153CSection 153D

routine manner. (d) Without granting a copy of the statement recorded on 14.01.2015 and thereby violating natural justice. (e) Without granting a copy of satisfaction note recorded by the AO 3. (a) In the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

unexplained investment is quantified in the reasons for reopening. Countering the argument of the Ld. DR, the Ld. AR submitted that the satisfaction note of the Ld. AO is not in accordance with the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act and mere inference cannot be a compliance

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

unexplained investment is quantified in the reasons for reopening. Countering the argument of the Ld. DR, the Ld. AR submitted that the satisfaction note of the Ld. AO is not in accordance with the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act and mere inference cannot be a compliance

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

unexplained investment is quantified in the reasons for reopening. Countering the argument of the Ld. DR, the Ld. AR submitted that the satisfaction note of the Ld. AO is not in accordance with the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act and mere inference cannot be a compliance

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

unexplained investment is quantified in the reasons for reopening. Countering the argument of the Ld. DR, the Ld. AR submitted that the satisfaction note of the Ld. AO is not in accordance with the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act and mere inference cannot be a compliance

Nitin A. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 665/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Nitin A. Shah Ito-19(2)(4) 31/32, 8Th Floor, Giriraj Apartment, 217, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Teen Batti, Walkeshwar, Vs. Grant Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 006

For Appellant: Ms. Suchek Anchaliya/For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153C

find any observation on this in the order of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR had also submitted a copy of the satisfaction note recorded u/s. 153C in the case of Shri Bhanwar Lal Jain Group and the assessee. The ld. DR vehemently controverted the submission

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad vs. Cogent Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 490/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 40Section 40a

assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in a combined order for various assessees including the documents referred to in the satisfaction note is not in the nature of incriminating material and accordingly the provisions of Section 153C is not applicable at the first instance. The relevant ... order of the CIT(A) reads as under: “Parag 7.1.8 (vi) Cogent Realtors Pvt. AY 2014-15 The document referred to in the satisfaction note of the appellant refers to Annexure A-2 seized from the premises of M3M Group. This document in the trial balance of the appellant company

Shri Tarsaim Singh Jamwal, Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 163/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT- DR
Section 153C

Jamwal, being one of the partners of M/s Simula Group on 27.06.2019, certain books of account/ documents were seized and on the basis of satisfaction note it was recorded that the documents seized have a bearing on the determination of the total income and thus notices u/s 153C ... books of accounts/ documents were seized and the information contained therein was alleged to be pertaining to the assessee and on the basis of satisfaction note it was recorded that the documents seized have a bearing on the determination of the total income of the appellant assessee. Subsequently notice

Shri Tarsaim Singh Jamwal, Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 162/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT- DR
Section 153C

Jamwal, being one of the partners of M/s Simula Group on 27.06.2019, certain books of account/ documents were seized and on the basis of satisfaction note it was recorded that the documents seized have a bearing on the determination of the total income and thus notices u/s 153C ... books of accounts/ documents were seized and the information contained therein was alleged to be pertaining to the assessee and on the basis of satisfaction note it was recorded that the documents seized have a bearing on the determination of the total income of the appellant assessee. Subsequently notice

Shri Tarsaim Singh Jamwal, Jammu vs. Deputy Commmissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 161/ASR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT- DR
Section 153C

Jamwal, being one of the partners of M/s Simula Group on 27.06.2019, certain books of account/ documents were seized and on the basis of satisfaction note it was recorded that the documents seized have a bearing on the determination of the total income and thus notices u/s 153C ... books of accounts/ documents were seized and the information contained therein was alleged to be pertaining to the assessee and on the basis of satisfaction note it was recorded that the documents seized have a bearing on the determination of the total income of the appellant assessee. Subsequently notice

Mr. Umesh Deepak Khanvilkar, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(1), Thane

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 995/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Mahisha H. GhindFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

that the same has been passed without Shri Unmesh Deepak Khanvilkar A.Y. 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 providing a satisfaction note recorded by appellant's assessing officer inspite of having specifically requested for or atleast mentioning in the Assessment order as to the applicability ... located at Navi Mumbai, Pune, and Kolhapur. Upon verification of the relevant materials seized during the course of the search and statements recorded, a satisfaction note under section 153C of the Act was received by the AO from the AO of the searched persons on 31/07/2018. Accordingly, notices under section

Mr. Umesh Deepak Khanvilkar, Thane vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(1), Thane

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 994/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Mahisha H. GhindFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

that the same has been passed without Shri Unmesh Deepak Khanvilkar A.Y. 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 providing a satisfaction note recorded by appellant's assessing officer inspite of having specifically requested for or atleast mentioning in the Assessment order as to the applicability ... located at Navi Mumbai, Pune, and Kolhapur. Upon verification of the relevant materials seized during the course of the search and statements recorded, a satisfaction note under section 153C of the Act was received by the AO from the AO of the searched persons on 31/07/2018. Accordingly, notices under section

Mr. Umesh Deepak Khanvilkar, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(1), Thane

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 993/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Mahisha H. GhindFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

that the same has been passed without Shri Unmesh Deepak Khanvilkar A.Y. 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 providing a satisfaction note recorded by appellant's assessing officer inspite of having specifically requested for or atleast mentioning in the Assessment order as to the applicability ... located at Navi Mumbai, Pune, and Kolhapur. Upon verification of the relevant materials seized during the course of the search and statements recorded, a satisfaction note under section 153C of the Act was received by the AO from the AO of the searched persons on 31/07/2018. Accordingly, notices under section

Mr. Umesh Dipak Khanvilkar, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(1), Thane

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 992/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Mahisha H. GhindFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

that the same has been passed without Shri Unmesh Deepak Khanvilkar A.Y. 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 providing a satisfaction note recorded by appellant's assessing officer inspite of having specifically requested for or atleast mentioning in the Assessment order as to the applicability ... located at Navi Mumbai, Pune, and Kolhapur. Upon verification of the relevant materials seized during the course of the search and statements recorded, a satisfaction note under section 153C of the Act was received by the AO from the AO of the searched persons on 31/07/2018. Accordingly, notices under section

Mr. Unmesh Deepak Khanvilkar, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 991/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Mahisha H. GhindFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

that the same has been passed without Shri Unmesh Deepak Khanvilkar A.Y. 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 providing a satisfaction note recorded by appellant's assessing officer inspite of having specifically requested for or atleast mentioning in the Assessment order as to the applicability ... located at Navi Mumbai, Pune, and Kolhapur. Upon verification of the relevant materials seized during the course of the search and statements recorded, a satisfaction note under section 153C of the Act was received by the AO from the AO of the searched persons on 31/07/2018. Accordingly, notices under section

DCIT Circle-05, New Delhi vs. Karina Airlines International Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 714/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

which the satisfaction not is prepared by the AO of the searched person and a notice is issued pursuant thereto. The date of the Satisfaction Note is 21st July. 2014 and the notice under Section 153C of the Act was issued on 23rdJuly 2014. The previous six AYs would therefore ... supra) is also an authority for the proposition that for the proceedings under Section 153C to be valid, there had to be a satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the searched person. 7 | P a g e AY: 2011-12 14. Lastly, in MIKADOREALTORS P. LTD. VERSUS