← 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

Dy CIT CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens P. Ltd.(in Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 557/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.313/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं.557/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं.556/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं.555/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.553/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), C-8,9 & 10, Satyam Shopping Centre, Mez Floor, Mg Road, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Pan: Aaccc-8862-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was completed making addition of interest income. The Authorized Representative of the assessee referring to the satisfaction note para-7 pointed that as per seized documents there were entries indicating investments and raising of debts and foreclosure from Mauritius entities. The alleged ... Rs.21,09,426/- being 8% of the inventory as income from house property u/s. 23 of the Act.” 6. From perusal of the satisfaction note (at page-1 of the paper book) it is evident that a common satisfaction note has been prepared for the assessment years

Dy CIT CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens P. Ltd.(in Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 556/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.313/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं.557/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं.556/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं.555/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.553/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), C-8,9 & 10, Satyam Shopping Centre, Mez Floor, Mg Road, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Pan: Aaccc-8862-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was completed making addition of interest income. The Authorized Representative of the assessee referring to the satisfaction note para-7 pointed that as per seized documents there were entries indicating investments and raising of debts and foreclosure from Mauritius entities. The alleged ... Rs.21,09,426/- being 8% of the inventory as income from house property u/s. 23 of the Act.” 6. From perusal of the satisfaction note (at page-1 of the paper book) it is evident that a common satisfaction note has been prepared for the assessment years

Dy CIT CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens P. Ltd.(in Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 555/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.313/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं.557/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं.556/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं.555/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.553/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), C-8,9 & 10, Satyam Shopping Centre, Mez Floor, Mg Road, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Pan: Aaccc-8862-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was completed making addition of interest income. The Authorized Representative of the assessee referring to the satisfaction note para-7 pointed that as per seized documents there were entries indicating investments and raising of debts and foreclosure from Mauritius entities. The alleged ... Rs.21,09,426/- being 8% of the inventory as income from house property u/s. 23 of the Act.” 6. From perusal of the satisfaction note (at page-1 of the paper book) it is evident that a common satisfaction note has been prepared for the assessment years

Dy CIT CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens P. Ltd.(in Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), Mumbai

ITA 554/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.554/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg.(Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P.Sutaria, Official Liquidator), C-8,9 & 10, Satyam Shopping Center, Mez Floor, Mg Road, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Pan: Aaccc-8862-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta & Shri Jayesh KapaniFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Srivastava
Section 143(3)Section 153C

separate satisfaction for the assessment year 2013-14. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed that a perusal of para-7 of satisfaction note would show that there is no reference to assessment year specific incriminating material. The incriminating material seized during the course of search that ... pending assessment. Apart from additions made in the original assessment no new addition was made on the basis of alleged incriminating material. The satisfaction note refers to the seized documents wherein entries indicate investments and raising of debts and foreclosure from Mauritius entities, however, in the assessment order no addition

Dy CIT CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens P. Ltd.(in Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 553/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.313/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं.557/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं.556/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं.555/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.553/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), C-8,9 & 10, Satyam Shopping Centre, Mez Floor, Mg Road, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Pan: Aaccc-8862-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was completed making addition of interest income. The Authorized Representative of the assessee referring to the satisfaction note para-7 pointed that as per seized documents there were entries indicating investments and raising of debts and foreclosure from Mauritius entities. The alleged ... Rs.21,09,426/- being 8% of the inventory as income from house property u/s. 23 of the Act.” 6. From perusal of the satisfaction note (at page-1 of the paper book) it is evident that a common satisfaction note has been prepared for the assessment years

Dy CIT, CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens P. Ltd., (in Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Loquidator)

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 313/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.313/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं.557/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं.556/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं.555/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.553/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), C-8,9 & 10, Satyam Shopping Centre, Mez Floor, Mg Road, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Pan: Aaccc-8862-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was completed making addition of interest income. The Authorized Representative of the assessee referring to the satisfaction note para-7 pointed that as per seized documents there were entries indicating investments and raising of debts and foreclosure from Mauritius entities. The alleged ... Rs.21,09,426/- being 8% of the inventory as income from house property u/s. 23 of the Act.” 6. From perusal of the satisfaction note (at page-1 of the paper book) it is evident that a common satisfaction note has been prepared for the assessment years

ITO Ward - 32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Genmal Jaswantlal Choudhary, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 162/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.313/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं.557/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं.556/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं.555/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं.553/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), C-8,9 & 10, Satyam Shopping Centre, Mez Floor, Mg Road, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Pan: Aaccc-8862-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was completed making addition of interest income. The Authorized Representative of the assessee referring to the satisfaction note para-7 pointed that as per seized documents there were entries indicating investments and raising of debts and foreclosure from Mauritius entities. The alleged ... Rs.21,09,426/- being 8% of the inventory as income from house property u/s. 23 of the Act.” 6. From perusal of the satisfaction note (at page-1 of the paper book) it is evident that a common satisfaction note has been prepared for the assessment years

Mapei Construction Products (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

being heard on the question whether transaction entered into by the assessee was an international transaction or not? (2) Whether, failure to supply satisfaction note to assessee before making reference to TPO was at most a mere irregularity and it could not turn the reference itself as void ab initio