← 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

Jai Shankar Maheshwari, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1183/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Shri Jai Shankar Vs Dcit, Maheshwari, B-14, 2Nd Floor, Central Circle-31, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092. New Delhi Pan-Aaupm3199E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2024 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.10146/2020-21 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Fact Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Having Income From Salary & Interest Income & Filed His Return Of Income On 10.01.2022, Declaring Income Of Inr 5,46,580/-. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny By Way Of Issue Of Notice On 30.06.2022 & After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee & Also Placing Reliance On The Material Found During The Course Of Search Carried Out On M/S. Jainco Ltd. On 06.01.2021, An Addition Of Inr 62,00,000/- Is Made To The Total Income Of The Assessee By Holding That The Same As Undisclosed Sales Consideration Received In Addition To The Agreed Consideration Received On The Sale Of 50% Of Shares In The Property At G-174, 2Nd Floor, Preet Vihar, New Delhi-110092. 3. Against This Order, An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Before Ld.Cit(A) Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Assessment Order On Merits Of The Additions Which Has Been Dismissed By The Ld.Cit(A) In Terms Of Impugned Order Dated 31.01.2024. 4. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Tribunal Wherein Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Taken:-

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 54

material found in the mobile phone of Shri Praveen K.Jain during the course of search carried out on 06.01.2021. From the perusal of the satisfaction note supplied to the assessee in terms of the letter dated 21.12.2022 available at page 125 to 127 of the Paper Book, it could ... seen that the satisfaction was recorded by the AO of Shri Praveen K.Jain i.e. person searched on 28.06.2022. Further, from the perusal of satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the assessee available at page 128, it is seen that the satisfaction is recorded by the AO of the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. K S Palanisamy, Erode

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

ITA 660/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.660/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of K.S. Palanisamy, Income Tax, Vs. Kuppagounden Valasu, Central Circle - 2(4), Avalpoondurai, Erode 638 115. Chennai. [Pan: Ajipp-8193-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai Dated 31.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised In The Appeal Is With Regard To Deletion Of Addition Made On Account Of Alleged Receipts From M/S. Srs Mining.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 34

certain documents with entries allegedly pertaining to the assessee were seized and sworn statements were recorded. Copies of the seized materials, extracts of satisfaction notes and sworn statement were provided to the assessee along with notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 05.12.2022 along with questionnaire. In response