← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross-Objections

ITA 3192/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3188 To 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 To 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. : : : : Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Actpv 0618 E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, Cit Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate 28.04.2025 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld.Cit(A) `) All Dated 17.10.2024 For The

Section 132Section 153ASection 15ASection 271D

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafterreferred to as "the Act") was conducted against Shri Anbu on 05-02-2020.The AO is found to have recorded a satisfaction note dated 30-08-2022 stating that, he was satisfied as per the Annexure attached to the note that, incriminating material found was 'belonging ... have a bearing on the determination of the total income of Shri K R Dhanush 4. However, in the Annexure appended to the satisfaction note, the AO is noted to have observed that the relevant seized material pertained to the assessee and had a bearing on his total income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

ITA 3191/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3188 To 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 To 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 28.04.2025 : 30.06.2025 Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Actpv 0618 E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld.Cit(A) `) All Dated 17.10.2024 For The

Section 132Section 153ASection 15ASection 271D

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafterreferred to as "the Act") was conducted against Shri Anbu on 05-02-2020.The AO is found to have recorded a satisfaction note dated 30-08-2022 stating that, he was satisfied as per the Annexure attached to the note that, incriminating material found was 'belonging ... have a bearing on the determination of the total income of Shri K R Dhanush 4. However, in the Annexure appended to the satisfaction note, the AO is noted to have observed that the relevant seized material pertained to the assessee and had a bearing on his total income

Smt.Prema Devi, L/R of Late.Shri. Dharmichand, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 566/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 563 To 567/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 Smt. Prema Devi, L/R. Of Late. Shri. Dharmichand Jain, Vs. No.37, Arumuga Achari Street, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Avspp-5090-L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2023 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012-13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 153CSection 153D

contain records of money-lending transactions pertaining to the late Shri Dharmichand Jain. The said document was seized vide reference ANN/DR/B&D/S. 7. A satisfaction note was thereafter recorded on 23.09.2014. The copy of satisfaction note for AY's: 2008-09 to 2012-13 was provided to the assessee ... much as it was passed beyond the statutorily prescribed time limit of six years from the end of the financial year in which the satisfaction note was recorded. 12. It is undisputed that the satisfaction note in the present case was recorded on 23.09.2014, which falls in Financial Year

Smt.Prema Devi, L/R of Late.Shri. Dharmichand, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 565/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 563 To 567/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 Smt. Prema Devi, L/R. Of Late. Shri. Dharmichand Jain, No.37, Arumuga Achari Street, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. [Pan:Avspp-5090-L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. D. Anand, Advocate Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. 05.05.2025 27.06.2025 आदेश /Order These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2023 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012-13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

Section 153CSection 153D

contain records of money-lending transactions pertaining to the late Shri Dharmichand Jain. The said document was seized vide reference ANN/DR/B&D/S. 7. A satisfaction note was thereafter recorded on 23.09.2014. The copy of satisfaction note for AY's: 2008-09 to 2012-13 was provided to the assessee ... much as it was passed beyond the statutorily prescribed time limit of six years from the end of the financial year in which the satisfaction note was recorded. 12. It is undisputed that the satisfaction note in the present case was recorded on 23.09.2014, which falls in Financial Year

Smt.Prema Devi, L/R of Late.Shri. Dharmichand, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 563/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 563 To 567/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 Smt. Prema Devi, L/R. Of Late. Shri. Dharmichand Jain, Vs. No.37, Arumuga Achari Street, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Avspp-5090-L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: आदेश /Order These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2023 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2012-13. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 153CSection 153D

contain records of money-lending transactions pertaining to the late Shri Dharmichand Jain. The said document was seized vide reference ANN/DR/B&D/S. 7. A satisfaction note was thereafter recorded on 23.09.2014. The copy of satisfaction note for AY's: 2008-09 to 2012-13 was provided to the assessee ... much as it was passed beyond the statutorily prescribed time limit of six years from the end of the financial year in which the satisfaction note was recorded. 12. It is undisputed that the satisfaction note in the present case was recorded on 23.09.2014, which falls in Financial Year