← All Phrases

“incriminating material”

Search & SeizureSection 153ASection 153A8,981 judgments

The decision most relied on for incriminating material is CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), cited in 3,235 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on incriminating material

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia
395 ITR 526 · 2017 · High Court
1,226
citing judgments

In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.

All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. DCIT
137 ITD 287 · 2012 · ITAT
907
citing judgments

In non-abated assessments, the Assessing Officer can make additions under section 153A based on books of accounts or documents found during a search but not produced during the original assessment, provided such material is incriminating.

PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.
397 ITR 82 · 2017 · High Court
786
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not by itself constitute incriminating material for making additions to income.

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.

Pr. CIT v. Saumya Constructions (P.)Ltd.
387 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court
670
citing judgments

Assessments under Section 153A cannot be sustained without any incriminating material found during the search that substantiates the additions. This principle applies even to completed assessments where no additional income is disclosed.

Judgments citing incriminating material

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

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 to' the assessee and had a bearing on his total income. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:- - ITA Nos.3188 - 3192/Chny/2024 & CO Nos.22 ... Section 15A that the seized material referred in SI No. 5 with the person referred to in S.No.4 I am satisfied that the incriminating material seized as per Annexures above belong to Shri K.R. Dhanush and have a bearing on the determination of the total income of Shri

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

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 to' the assessee and had a bearing on his total income. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:- - ITA Nos.3188 - 3192/Chny/2024 & CO Nos.22 ... Section 15A that the seized material referred in SI No. 5 with the person referred to in S.No.4 I am satisfied that the incriminating material seized as per Annexures above belong to Shri K.R. Dhanush and have a bearing on the determination of the total income of Shri

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai vs. Underwater Services Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2342/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Road, Mazgaon, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Road, Mazgaon, Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh/Akshy PawarFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(2)(b)

passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned First Appellate Authority, Inter-alia challenging the validity of the additions made in absence of any incriminating material found as a result of search and seizure operation. However, learned First Appellate Authority did not entertain assessee’s ground on the legal issue. However ... merits. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the additions disallowances made by the AO are not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search. He submitted, very same issues were examined by the AO while completing the assessment

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -5(3), Mumbai vs. Underwater Services Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2341/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Road, Mazgaon, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Road, Mazgaon, Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh/Akshy PawarFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(2)(b)

passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned First Appellate Authority, Inter-alia challenging the validity of the additions made in absence of any incriminating material found as a result of search and seizure operation. However, learned First Appellate Authority did not entertain assessee’s ground on the legal issue. However ... merits. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the additions disallowances made by the AO are not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search. He submitted, very same issues were examined by the AO while completing the assessment

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5 (3), Mumbai vs. Underwater Services Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2340/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Road, Mazgaon, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Road, Mazgaon, Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh/Akshy PawarFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(2)(b)

passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned First Appellate Authority, Inter-alia challenging the validity of the additions made in absence of any incriminating material found as a result of search and seizure operation. However, learned First Appellate Authority did not entertain assessee’s ground on the legal issue. However ... merits. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the additions disallowances made by the AO are not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search. He submitted, very same issues were examined by the AO while completing the assessment

Underwater Services Company Ltd, Mumbai Suburban vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2265/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Road, Mazgaon, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Road, Mazgaon, Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh/Akshy PawarFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(2)(b)

passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned First Appellate Authority, Inter-alia challenging the validity of the additions made in absence of any incriminating material found as a result of search and seizure operation. However, learned First Appellate Authority did not entertain assessee’s ground on the legal issue. However ... merits. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the additions disallowances made by the AO are not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search. He submitted, very same issues were examined by the AO while completing the assessment

Underwater Services Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2264/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Road, Mazgaon, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K Underwater Services Company Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/24, Mbpt Building, Malet Bunder Central Circle 5(3), Road, Mazgaon, Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai- 400009 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu 0302K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh/Akshy PawarFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(2)(b)

passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned First Appellate Authority, Inter-alia challenging the validity of the additions made in absence of any incriminating material found as a result of search and seizure operation. However, learned First Appellate Authority did not entertain assessee’s ground on the legal issue. However ... merits. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the additions disallowances made by the AO are not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search. He submitted, very same issues were examined by the AO while completing the assessment