← 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

Mohan Pal, Haldwani, Nainital vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Haldwani, ACIT - DCIT

ITA 84/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153CSection 250

proceedings or assumption of jurisdiction is concerned. 49. That takes us to the principal question and which pertains to the nature of the incriminating material that may be obtained and the years forming part of the block which would merit being thrown open. Regard must be had to the fact ... years which are mentioned in that provision, the same alone would not be sufficient to justify steps in that direction being taken, unless the incriminating material so found is likely to have an impact on the total income of a particular AY forming part of the six AYs' immediately preceding

Mohan Pal, Haldwani, Nainital vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Haldwani, ACIT-DCIT

ITA 83/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153CSection 250

proceedings or assumption of jurisdiction is concerned. 49. That takes us to the principal question and which pertains to the nature of the incriminating material that may be obtained and the years forming part of the block which would merit being thrown open. Regard must be had to the fact ... years which are mentioned in that provision, the same alone would not be sufficient to justify steps in that direction being taken, unless the incriminating material so found is likely to have an impact on the total income of a particular AY forming part of the six AYs' immediately preceding

Narayanlal Bhanaji Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 588/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pallavi, CIT-DR & Shri Rameshwar P
Section 115BSection 132Section 153CSection 68

dates. During the course of the search, the residential premises of Shri Champak Narayanlal Prajapati, the son of the assessee, were also covered. Certain incriminating materials and digital data were found and seized during the course of search which as per the Ld. AO related to the assessee. Consequently, proceedings ... learned CIT(Appeals) therefore held that the estimation of commission income at the rate of 0.25% was justified. However, considering the fact that the incriminating material was found from the Narayanlal Bhanaji Prajapati vs. ACIT Asst. Year –2021-22 - 5– possession of the assessee and the assessee himself had admitted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Saraf the Jewellers, Punjab

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1594/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1232/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1594/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) and Sh. Sahil RatraFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 65BSection 69C

assessee succeeds in corresponding grounds of appeal. This being so, the addition of Rs.350.16 Lacs would also not survive since no incriminating material, in that respect, has been found from the assessee. The addition is merely an extrapolation by Ld. AO on the basis of probable market prices as gathered ... that no incriminating evidence has been found during search which would indicate incurrence of unaccounted expenditure by the assessee. In the absence of such incriminating material, the reference to DVO itself would be illegal, arbitrary and bad-in-law. The facts of the present case would show that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Saraf the Jewellers, Punjab

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1593/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1231/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1593/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) –
Section 115BSection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 65BSection 68Section 69C

SCOs/DSS is illegal, arbitrary and it is against the settled law by the jurisdictional Chandigarh bench of the ITAT that if no incriminating material is found in respect of the amount spent on the construction of SCOs / DSS, the reference to DVO was illegal and thus, the addition ... assessee succeeds in corresponding grounds of appeal. This being so, the addition of Rs.350.16 Lacs would also not survive since no incriminating material, in that respect, has been found from the assessee. The addition is merely an extrapolation by Ld. AO on the basis of probable market prices as gathered

Saraf the Jeweller, Chandigarh vs. The DCIT/ACIT Central Circle- 2, Chandigarh

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1232/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1232/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1594/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) and Sh. Sahil RatraFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 65BSection 69C

assessee succeeds in corresponding grounds of appeal. This being so, the addition of Rs.350.16 Lacs would also not survive since no incriminating material, in that respect, has been found from the assessee. The addition is merely an extrapolation by Ld. AO on the basis of probable market prices as gathered ... that no incriminating evidence has been found during search which would indicate incurrence of unaccounted expenditure by the assessee. In the absence of such incriminating material, the reference to DVO itself would be illegal, arbitrary and bad-in-law. The facts of the present case would show that

Saraf the Jeweller, Chandigarh vs. The DCIT/ACIT Central Circle -2, Chandigarh

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1231/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1231/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1593/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) –
Section 115BSection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 65BSection 68Section 69C

SCOs/DSS is illegal, arbitrary and it is against the settled law by the jurisdictional Chandigarh bench of the ITAT that if no incriminating material is found in respect of the amount spent on the construction of SCOs / DSS, the reference to DVO was illegal and thus, the addition ... assessee succeeds in corresponding grounds of appeal. This being so, the addition of Rs.350.16 Lacs would also not survive since no incriminating material, in that respect, has been found from the assessee. The addition is merely an extrapolation by Ld. AO on the basis of probable market prices as gathered

Balwant Laxmanji Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeal

ITA 8454/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar
Section 153CSection 250

confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides, incrementing document. Besides, he has not referred to any he has not referred to any incriminating material in incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances ... learned Authorised Representative for the assessee The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found

Balwant Laxmanji Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeal

ITA 8453/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar
Section 153CSection 250

confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides, incrementing document. Besides, he has not referred to any he has not referred to any incriminating material in incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances ... learned Authorised Representative for the assessee The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found

Balwant Laxmanji Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeal

ITA 8452/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar
Section 153CSection 250

confirming addition without referring to any incrementing document. Besides, incrementing document. Besides, he has not referred to any he has not referred to any incriminating material in incriminating material in the satisfaction note issued to the the satisfaction note issued to the Appellant. Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances ... learned Authorised Representative for the assessee The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee submitted that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found

Ganesharam Galbaram Mali, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8349/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 69Section 69C

that the assessment in the present case has been initiated under section 153C of the Act, and under the provisions of that section, the incriminating material pertaining to the assessee, which forms the basis of recording satisfaction, ought to have been forwarded to the Ld. AO of the assessee. However ... accordingly grounds No. 1 2 filed by the assessee be dismissed. 4. 3. The assessee raised grounds relates to absence of reference to any incriminating material and lack of opportunity for cross-examination by the assessing officer. 4. 4. Revenue's contention on Ground

Ganesharam Galbaram Mali, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8348/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 69C

that the assessment in the present case has been initiated under section 153C of the Act, and under the provisions of that section, the incriminating material pertaining to the assessee, which forms the basis of recording satisfaction, ought to have been forwarded to the Ld. AO of the assessee. However ... accordingly grounds No. 1 2 filed by the assessee be dismissed. 4.3. The assessee raised grounds relates to absence of reference to any incriminating material and lack of opportunity for cross-examination by the assessing officer.4.4. Revenue's contention on Ground No. 3,4 75: 4.4.1. The Grounds

Ganesharam Galbaram Mali, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8347/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 69C

that the assessment in the present case has been initiated under section 153C of the Act, and under the provisions of that section, the incriminating material pertaining to the assessee, which forms the basis of recording satisfaction, ought to have been forwarded to the Ld. AO of the assessee. However ... accordingly grounds No. 1 2 filed by the assessee be dismissed. 4.3. The assessee raised grounds relates to absence of reference to any incriminating material and lack of opportunity for cross-examination by the assessing officer.4.4. Revenue's contention on Ground No. 3,4 75: 4.4.1. The Grounds

Six Twenty Realty Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

ITA 785/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

basis of disclosure regarding on-money receipt pertaining to land selling transactions in subsequent years could not be sustained in absence of any other incriminating material.  Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of N.R. Paper & Board Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 733 had held that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Whitelotus Solar Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2134/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.TFor Respondent: Ms. Vinita Shah, C.A. (by Virtual)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

assessee submitted that there is no seized material found during the search and therefore, no addition can be made in the absence of any incriminating material. Further, the assessee submitted that the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Act while passing the order u/s.153A ... submitted that there was no seized material found during the search and therefore, no addition can be made in the absence of any incriminating material in the order passed u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Hence, there is no perversity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) in deleting

Rajender Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Centre Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6147/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarpunit Kumar Gupta, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aadpg8050H (Appellant) (Respondent) Amit Kumar Gupta, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aeupg5175Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Rajender Kumar Gupta The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aezpg8253L (Appellant) (Respondent) Punit Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Acit

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69A

Assessee is invalid, inter alia, because the search is without any authority much less valid authority and reason to believe. (4) Any incriminating material much-less evidence, was not found during the course of search of the Assessee. (5) The Id. AO failed to mention the Document Identification Number

Amit Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6146/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarpunit Kumar Gupta, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aadpg8050H (Appellant) (Respondent) Amit Kumar Gupta, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aeupg5175Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Rajender Kumar Gupta The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aezpg8253L (Appellant) (Respondent) Punit Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Acit

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69A

Assessee is invalid, inter alia, because the search is without any authority much less valid authority and reason to believe. (4) Any incriminating material much-less evidence, was not found during the course of search of the Assessee. (5) The Id. AO failed to mention the Document Identification Number

Punit Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle -25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6145/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarpunit Kumar Gupta, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aadpg8050H (Appellant) (Respondent) Amit Kumar Gupta, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aeupg5175Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Rajender Kumar Gupta The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aezpg8253L (Appellant) (Respondent) Punit Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Acit

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69A

Assessee is invalid, inter alia, because the search is without any authority much less valid authority and reason to believe. (4) Any incriminating material much-less evidence, was not found during the course of search of the Assessee. (5) The Id. AO failed to mention the Document Identification Number

Richmond Educational Society, Noida vs. DCIT/ACIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

ITA 4779/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv
Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

group companies. A consequential search was also carried out in the case of the Assessee Society. The claim of the Assessee is that no incriminating material or evidence was found during the course of the search action on the Assessee Society so as to cast any doubt on the nature ... institution and not on isolated transactions or disputed financial arrangements. It was submitted that even though search was conducted on the Assessee society, no incriminating material, document or evidence whatsoever was found during the course of the search to suggest that the activities of the Assessee society in relation

Alok & Co LLP, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2736/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 153CSection 153DSection 65BSection 69A

CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. 7. On the facts and in law, the AO/CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, the interference with a completed assessment and additions under Section 153C of the Act are unsustainable and without jurisdiction ... note prepared for the purposes of initiation of proceedings against the assessee u/s 153C of the ITA No. 2735 & 2736/Del/2025 Act. The so-called incriminating material had to have some nexus with the addition ultimately made. That not having been established. 8. On the other hand, Ld DR objected