← All Phrases

“documents seized”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 1322,593 judgments

The decision most relied on for documents seized is SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (346 ITR 177), cited in 308 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on documents seized

SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
346 ITR 177 · 2012 · High Court
308
citing judgments

The date of initiation of search or requisition for the purpose of abatement of assessment proceedings is the date of search or requisition, or the date of receipt of seized documents by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whichever is later. Proceedings under section 153C can only be initiated by the Assessing Officer of the searched person after being satisfied that seized documents belong to another person.

CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P)
294 ITR 49 · 2007 · Supreme Court
299
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on uncorroborated third-party statements, documents, or loose sheets seized during a search, and such evidence requires the assessee to be provided with an opportunity for cross-examination.

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.

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.

Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd.
86 Taxmann.com 84 · 2017 · High Court
184
citing judgments

For a valid reassessment under Section 153C, seized documents must be incriminating and directly relevant to the assessment years being reopened. Documents that are not incriminating or do not relate to the assessment years do not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement.

CIT v. Girish Chaudhary
296 ITR 619 · 2008 · High Court
175
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on "dumb documents" or vague loose papers seized during a search that merely indicate rates without specific corroborative material linking them to the assessee's unaccounted transactions. The presumption under Section 292C may not apply to such documents.

CIT v. Sant Lal
118 Taxmann.com 432 · 2020 · High Court
154
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made solely on the basis of entries in a diary seized from a third party if the diary is not found in the assessee's premises, not in the assessee's handwriting, and the revenue fails to provide corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the diary.

Judgments citing documents seized

Krishnamoorthy Ramlingam Mudaliyar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3 Thane, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2894/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2894/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2895/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2893/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishnamoorthy Ramlingam Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Mudaliyar 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Vs. Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Ashar It Park, Road-16- Avenue, Sector-36, Plot No. Z, Wagle Industrial 27, Kamothe, Navi Estate, Thane-(W)- Mumbai-410218. 400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.313/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Krishnamoorthy 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Ramlingam Mudaliyar Vs. Ashar It Park, Road-16-Z, Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Wagle Industrial Estate, Avenue, Sector-36, Plot Thane-(W)-400604. No. 27, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai-410218. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rameshvar P Meena/Nimesh

after filing one adjournment letter and the assessee also did not looked into this matter. If the assessee had any submission in support of documents seized during the course of search, he would have filed it during assessment itself instead of remanding the case to the AO. (vi) In light ... incomes and had been accordingly assessed to tax in their hands. The Ld. AR thus submitted that, when the incriminating contents found in the documents seized from the possession of M/s VIPL and their Directors was held to be pertaining to them and accordingly used to make additions to their

Krishnamoorthy Ramlinngam Mudaliyar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3 Thane, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2893/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2894/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2895/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2893/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishnamoorthy Ramlingam Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Mudaliyar 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Vs. Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Ashar It Park, Road-16- Avenue, Sector-36, Plot No. Z, Wagle Industrial 27, Kamothe, Navi Estate, Thane-(W)- Mumbai-410218. 400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.313/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Krishnamoorthy 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Ramlingam Mudaliyar Vs. Ashar It Park, Road-16-Z, Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Wagle Industrial Estate, Avenue, Sector-36, Plot Thane-(W)-400604. No. 27, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai-410218. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rameshvar P Meena/Nimesh

after filing one adjournment letter and the assessee also did not looked into this matter. If the assessee had any submission in support of documents seized during the course of search, he would have filed it during assessment itself instead of remanding the case to the AO. (vi) In light ... incomes and had been accordingly assessed to tax in their hands. The Ld. AR thus submitted that, when the incriminating contents found in the documents seized from the possession of M/s VIPL and their Directors was held to be pertaining to them and accordingly used to make additions to their

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 375/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

earlier passed u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act is that, earlier the Assessing Officer used the expression belonging to and held that the documents seized /impounded from UPDA or its Secretary General Sh. R. K. Miglani belonged to the assessee, whereas in the present assessment proceedings it has been ... based on the statement of Sh. R. K. Miglani. 19. Thus, we are in tandem with the submissions of Ld. Counsel that whether the documents seized from the searched party are held as “belonging to” or “pertaining to”, it does not materially effect the findings rendered by the Tribunal