← 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

Satish Vishnu Thombare, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Varsha Prafulla Zende, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1656/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) grossly erred in holding that nature of expenses as contained in the satisfaction note is the final verdict of the AO, ignoring the fact that prima-facie reasons are sustainable and held to be true. 3. The learned ... submitted that the information was received by the Ld. AO from the ACIT, Kolkata on 31.03.2017, the Ld. AO recorded his satisfaction note on 31.03.2017 and the said satisfaction note was sent to the PCIT in Pune from ACIT, Ahmednagar for approval

Ketkiben Samirbhai Jani, Junagadh vs. ITO, Ward-1, Junagadh

ITA 544/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.544/Rjt/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Ketkiben Samirbhai Jani 11/12 Vs. Ito, Ward-1 Chamber Building,, Jaishree Talkies Road, Near Sardar Patel Bhavan, Junagadh. 362001, Bhoothnath Chambers, College Road, Junagadh 362001 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abupj1530B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Jani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2025 आदेश / Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 18/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 21/03/2024, U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Page 1

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

illegal and in violation of principals of natural justice. The assessee has right from day one requesting for a copy of Satisfaction Note of A.O. of searched person and Jurisdictional A.O along with a copy of incriminating document and an opportunity for cross examination, which has never been provided. Ignoring