← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Pearl Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd, Chennai

Appeal stand dismissed which make assessee’s cross-objections infructuous

ITA 1043/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1043/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit M/S. Pearl Printers & Publishers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-2(4), बनाम/ Vs. Chennai-34. 8/16, Mogappair West, Chennai-600 058. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcp-7244-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2.Cross Objection No.11/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1043/Chny/2023) (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ M/S. Pearl Printers & Publishers (P) Ltd. Dcit 8/16, Mogappair West, Vs. Central Circle-2(4), Chennai-600 058. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcp-7244-H (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit) –Ld. Dr " थ" की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. Dinesh (Advocates)- Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. DineshFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 153C

Assessing Officer of this assessee as required u/s.153C of IT Act before proceeding to frame an assessment. In the absence of such a satisfaction note the assessment has no legs to stand and ought to have been cancelled by CIT(A). 2.1 The CIT(A) has righty held that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Pearl Printers and Publishers (P) Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1042/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1042/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit M/S. Pearl Printers & Publishers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-2(4), बनाम/ Vs. Chennai-34. 8/16, Mogappair West, Chennai-600 058. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcp-7244-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.10/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1042/Chny/2023) (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बनाम/ M/S. Pearl Printers & Publishers (P) Ltd. Dcit 8/16, Mogappair West, Vs. Central Circle-2(4), Chennai-600 058. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcp-7244-H (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit) –Ld. Dr " थ" की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. Dinesh (Advocates)- Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. DineshFor Respondent: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153C

Assessing Officer of this assessee as required u/s.153C of IT Act before proceeding to frame an assessment. 1.4 In the absence of such a satisfaction note recorded by either of the officers the order of assessment has no legs to stand and ought to have been cancelled

M/S Ruby Realty Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 967/CHNY/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.966/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.967/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) M/S. Ruby Realty Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ No. B-908, Radiance Shine Apts, Central Circle-3(4), Vs. Chennai-34. Kazhipattur, Omr, Chennai-600 103. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcr-2832-B (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153C

Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not following Circular No. 24/2015 dated 31 December 2015 issued by the CBDT which clearly instructs the Officers to record satisfaction note for assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153C. The Circular is binding on the Assessing Officer. Further, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C is not an empty formality ... that the addition was not based on any incriminating material as found during the course of search. The Ld. AO did not record any satisfaction note before making assessment u/s 153C. 3.4 Rejecting the same, Ld. CIT(A) held that notice u/s 153C was issued based on seized document which

M/S Ruby Realty Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 966/CHNY/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.966/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.967/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) M/S. Ruby Realty Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ No. B-908, Radiance Shine Apts, Central Circle-3(4), Vs. Chennai-34. Kazhipattur, Omr, Chennai-600 103. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcr-2832-B (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153C

Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not following Circular No. 24/2015 dated 31 December 2015 issued by the CBDT which clearly instructs the Officers to record satisfaction note for assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153C. The Circular is binding on the Assessing Officer. Further, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C is not an empty formality ... that the addition was not based on any incriminating material as found during the course of search. The Ld. AO did not record any satisfaction note before making assessment u/s 153C. 3.4 Rejecting the same, Ld. CIT(A) held that notice u/s 153C was issued based on seized document which

M/S. Jayam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1061/CHNY/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1061/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) M/S. Jayam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.B-908, Radiance Shine Apartments, Central Circle-3(4), Vs. Chennai-34. Kazhipattur, Omr, Chennai-600 103. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcj-4327-R (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथPकीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (Ca)-Ld. Ar TuथPकीओरसे/ Respondent By : Smt. Komali Krishna (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 153C

Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not following Circular No.24/2015 dated 31 December 2015 issued by the CBDT which clearly instructs the Officers to record satisfaction note for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C. The Circular is binding on the Assessing Officer. Further, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C is not an empty formality ... assessee were found during search on assessee group. The assessee, relying on CBDT Circular No.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015, submitted that AO was bound to record satisfaction note for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C. Mere possession of documents would not confer jurisdiction to AO for issuing notice u/s 153C. The AO should