← 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(4), Hyderabad vs. Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 305/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 132

first we are taking up the C.O. of the assesse. The Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. AO has made the addition without any incriminating material. In support of their claim, the Ld. AR invited our attention to para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO and submitted that ... gross receipts which is also recorded in the books of account. Accordingly, the addition has been made by the Ld. AO without any incriminating material. 7.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that, the assessee had filed its Return of Income (“ROI”) on 25.06.2012 and date of search C.O. Nos.19

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 304/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 132

first we are taking up the C.O. of the assesse. The Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. AO has made the addition without any incriminating material. In support of their claim, the Ld. AR invited our attention to para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO and submitted that ... gross receipts which is also recorded in the books of account. Accordingly, the addition has been made by the Ld. AO without any incriminating material. 7.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that, the assessee had filed its Return of Income (“ROI”) on 25.06.2012 and date of search C.O. Nos.19

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 303/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 132

first we are taking up the C.O. of the assesse. The Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. AO has made the addition without any incriminating material. In support of their claim, the Ld. AR invited our attention to para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO and submitted that ... gross receipts which is also recorded in the books of account. Accordingly, the addition has been made by the Ld. AO without any incriminating material. 7.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that, the assessee had filed its Return of Income (“ROI”) on 25.06.2012 and date of search C.O. Nos.19

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 302/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 132

first we are taking up the C.O. of the assesse. The Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. AO has made the addition without any incriminating material. In support of their claim, the Ld. AR invited our attention to para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO and submitted that ... gross receipts which is also recorded in the books of account. Accordingly, the addition has been made by the Ld. AO without any incriminating material. 7.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that, the assessee had filed its Return of Income (“ROI”) on 25.06.2012 and date of search C.O. Nos.19

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 301/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 132

first we are taking up the C.O. of the assesse. The Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. AO has made the addition without any incriminating material. In support of their claim, the Ld. AR invited our attention to para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO and submitted that ... gross receipts which is also recorded in the books of account. Accordingly, the addition has been made by the Ld. AO without any incriminating material. 7.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that, the assessee had filed its Return of Income (“ROI”) on 25.06.2012 and date of search C.O. Nos.19

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 300/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 132

first we are taking up the C.O. of the assesse. The Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. AO has made the addition without any incriminating material. In support of their claim, the Ld. AR invited our attention to para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO and submitted that ... gross receipts which is also recorded in the books of account. Accordingly, the addition has been made by the Ld. AO without any incriminating material. 7.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that, the assessee had filed its Return of Income (“ROI”) on 25.06.2012 and date of search C.O. Nos.19

Sabir, Sew 7 Prasad Jv, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 214/HYD/2019[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 80I

r.w.s.153C of the Act and the additions were not made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search from the premises of the searched person. It was submitted that in the present case, the search action was initiated ... jurisdiction to make the disallowance of the claim under Section 80IA after the search proceedings carried out on the searched person when no incriminating material was found disclosing the escapement of income as required u/s 153C of the Act. 8. Per contra, Ld.DR submitted that in the present case

Sabir, Sew & Prasad Jv, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 213/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 80I

r.w.s.153C of the Act and the additions were not made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search from the premises of the searched person. It was submitted that in the present case, the search action was initiated ... jurisdiction to make the disallowance of the claim under Section 80IA after the search proceedings carried out on the searched person when no incriminating material was found disclosing the escapement of income as required u/s 153C of the Act. 8. Per contra, Ld.DR submitted that in the present case

Sabir, Sew & Prasad Jv, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 212/HYD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

r.w.s.153C of the Act and the additions were not made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search from the premises of the searched person. It was submitted that in the present case, the search action was initiated ... jurisdiction to make the disallowance of the claim under Section 80IA after the search proceedings carried out on the searched person when no incriminating material was found disclosing the escapement of income as required u/s 153C of the Act. 8. Per contra, Ld.DR submitted that in the present case

P.Shanmugasundaram (HUF), Erode vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(I/C), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1997/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Umashankar Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpu-0364-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Karthikeyan Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeepk-4137-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1997/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri P. Shanmugasundaram (Huf) Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aachp-1597-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the addition was not made based on any incriminating material found during the course of search in the premises of the appellant. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ... case where purported incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found in the premises of a person other than the searched person, ought to have completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153C and not u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A. 6. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that

Shanmugasundaram Karthikeyan, Erode vs. DCIT Central Circle - 3(I/C), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1996/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Umashankar Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpu-0364-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Karthikeyan Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeepk-4137-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1997/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri P. Shanmugasundaram (Huf) Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aachp-1597-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the addition was not made based on any incriminating material found during the course of search in the premises of the appellant. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ... case where purported incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found in the premises of a person other than the searched person, ought to have completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153C and not u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A. 6. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that

Shanmugasundaram Umashankar, Erode vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(I/C), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1995/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Umashankar Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpu-0364-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Shanmugasundaram Karthikeyan Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeepk-4137-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1997/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri P. Shanmugasundaram (Huf) Dcit बनाम/ 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Central Circle-3(I/C) Vs. Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aachp-1597-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the addition was not made based on any incriminating material found during the course of search in the premises of the appellant. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ... case where purported incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found in the premises of a person other than the searched person, ought to have completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153C and not u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A. 6. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cavincare Pvt Ltd., Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 768/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.766/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.767/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.768/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Cavinkare Private Limited बनाम/ 12, Cavin Ville, Cenotaph Road Central Circle-2(1) Vs. Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacb-3754-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

disallowance of deduction u/s.35(2AB), excess claim of depreciation for the reason that the additions were not made on the basis of incriminating materials. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to adjudicate the issues on the basis of merits of the case. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that ... seized material as well as sworn statements and therefore, Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief on the ground that there was no incriminating material. The Ld. CIT-DR drew attention to the statement recorded during search proceedings on the assessee. The list of material as seized during the course

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cavincare Pvt Ltd., Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 767/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.766/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.767/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.768/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Cavinkare Private Limited बनाम/ 12, Cavin Ville, Cenotaph Road Central Circle-2(1) Vs. Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacb-3754-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

disallowance of deduction u/s.35(2AB), excess claim of depreciation for the reason that the additions were not made on the basis of incriminating materials. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to adjudicate the issues on the basis of merits of the case. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that ... seized material as well as sworn statements and therefore, Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief on the ground that there was no incriminating material. The Ld. CIT-DR drew attention to the statement recorded during search proceedings on the assessee. The list of material as seized during the course

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cavincare Pvt Ltd., Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 766/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.766/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.767/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.768/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Cavinkare Private Limited बनाम/ 12, Cavin Ville, Cenotaph Road Central Circle-2(1) Vs. Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacb-3754-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

disallowance of deduction u/s.35(2AB), excess claim of depreciation for the reason that the additions were not made on the basis of incriminating materials. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to adjudicate the issues on the basis of merits of the case. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that ... seized material as well as sworn statements and therefore, Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief on the ground that there was no incriminating material. The Ld. CIT-DR drew attention to the statement recorded during search proceedings on the assessee. The list of material as seized during the course

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cavincare Pvt Ltd., Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 765/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.766/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.767/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.768/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Cavinkare Private Limited बनाम/ 12, Cavin Ville, Cenotaph Road Central Circle-2(1) Vs. Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacb-3754-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

disallowance of deduction u/s.35(2AB), excess claim of depreciation for the reason that the additions were not made on the basis of incriminating materials. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to adjudicate the issues on the basis of merits of the case. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that ... seized material as well as sworn statements and therefore, Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief on the ground that there was no incriminating material. The Ld. CIT-DR drew attention to the statement recorded during search proceedings on the assessee. The list of material as seized during the course

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartechem Technologies Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2226/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mahadhan Agritech Ltd. (Formerly Cit(A)-50, Dcit Cen. 8(1), Known As Smartchem Technologies 656, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ltd.), Mumbai-400021. Survey No. 93, Sai Hira, Mundhwa, Pune-411036. Pan No. Aacca 5046 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: 28/11/2024
Section 132Section 153ASection 69A

since no incriminating of the express provisions of the Act since no incriminating of the express provisions of the Act since no incriminating material has been found during the course of search and seizure material has been found during the course of search and seizure material has been found during ... grossly erred in holding CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in holding CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in holding incriminating materials were unearthed during the course of incriminating materials were unearthed during the course of incriminating materials were unearthed during the course of search & seizure

Baljeet Singh Gill, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

Appeals are hereby allowed in above terms

ITA 1175/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Supreme International. That being the case, the assessee’s again takes us to pages 14 to 17 in the paper book compiling the alleged incriminating material which is found as nothing but blank letter heads of all the preceding four entities. 3. Faced with this situation, learned CIT(DR) vehemently ... argues that once the departmental authorities had found/ seized the said incriminating material/ blank 3 ITA nos. 2128 to 2131 of 2022 & 1172 to 1175/Del/2023 - M/s RG Home Furnishing P. Ltd. letter heads from the assessee’s hard disk and the post search inquiries specifically indicated them

Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central-2, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 38/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Apex court in the case of Common Cause (supra) has held that “The Apex Court has taken into account in similar circumstances the incriminating materials in form of random sheets, loose papers, computer prints, hard disk and pen drives etc and has held that they are inadmissible in evidence ... basis of a dumb document. (d) The_AO erred _in_ making additions on suspicion, surmise_and conjecture basis and without having any incriminating material on record found from _the_residential/business premises of the appellant relating to the year in which additions have been made:- The AO has grossly erred

M.M. Patel Public Charitable Trust, Solapur vs. PCIT- Central, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1130/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025
Section 12Section 127Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

purview of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 12AA(4) of the IT Act. As stated in the show cause notice also, the incriminating material found during search has reflected such violations during the financial years 2019-20 onwards (refer Para 2.4 above). Accordingly, the assessee trust is liable