incriminating material — 8,981 case laws

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3951/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

have been done, since the return income of that year was accepted by the revenue under scrutiny assessment proceedings and no new fact or incriminating material was found during the search. 8.10 A chart showing, returned income of the assessee, credit in bank account, commissioned earned, net profit, addition made ... income was accepted, so no estimation should be done, cannot be accepted, as this would lead to further verification of facts, that whether any incriminating material was surfaced during the search or not, while the legal grounds are not pressed by the Id. AR, thus are rendered being dismissed

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3950/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Section 153CSection 250Section 254(1)

have been done, since the return income of that year was accepted by the revenue under scrutiny assessment proceedings and no new fact or incriminating material was found during the search. 8.10 A chart showing, returned income of the assessee, credit in bank account, commissioned earned, net profit, addition made ... income was accepted, so no estimation should be done, cannot be accepted, as this would lead to further verification of facts, that whether any incriminating material was surfaced during the search or not, while the legal grounds are not pressed by the ld. AR, thus are rendered being dismissed

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3862/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Section 153CSection 250Section 254(1)

have been done, since the return income of that year was accepted by the revenue under scrutiny assessment proceedings and no new fact or incriminating material was found during the search. 8.10 A chart showing, returned income of the assessee, credit in bank account, commissioned earned, net profit, addition made ... income was accepted, so no estimation should be done, cannot be accepted, as this would lead to further verification of facts, that whether any incriminating material was surfaced during the search or not, while the legal grounds are not pressed by the ld. AR, thus are rendered being dismissed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Das Offshore Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 2944/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148A

fact that the Assessing Officer had relied upon alleged survey findings without bringing any independent corroborative evidence on record and without confronting any incriminating material to the assessee. The relevant findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are reproduced hereunder. 5.6 I have gone through the facts ... nature of work undertaken. 16. The reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on survey- related information suffers from a fundamental infirmity. No incriminating material emanating from such survey has been confronted to the assessee. No statement, document or evidence has been brought on record to establish that the payments made

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Avin Rajendrakumar Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 84/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

entirety, does not implicate the assessee in any manner. Reliance on such a statement, without corroboration and without confronting the assessee with any incriminating material emanating therefrom, is legally untenable and cannot form the sole basis for sustaining the impugned addition. 16. Equally important is the fact that the temporary ... assessee, the partial sale of shares while retaining the substantial holding, the absence of any 10 ITA No.84/Mum/2024 and CO No.43/Mum/2024 Avin Rajendrakumar Agrawal incriminating material or cash trail, and the failure of the Assessing Officer to rebut the documentary evidence, we find no infirmity in the well-reasoned order

G S Automobiles Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, Delhi

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

ITA 4289/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmang.S. Automobiles Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 6, B – 26, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase Ii, Delhi. Delhi – 110 020. (Pan : Aadcg1150B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 24 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 19.06.2025 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Orders Passed By Ld. Ao U/S 153C Of The Act As Well As Appellate Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A) Are Bad In Law & Are Passed In Contravention Of Prevailing Law As Well As Facts Of The Case, Therefore Liable To Be Annulled. 2. That Assumption Of Jurisdiction Of Ld. Ao In Consequence Of Order Passed By Ld. Pcit U/S 127(3) Of The Act Of The Act Is Illegal & Not Tenable Under The Law Because Of Said Order Being Mechanical & Being Passed

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 68Section 69C

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 6 years forming part of the block which would merit being thrown open. Regard must ... 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

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

case in confirming the decision of Ld. AO in changing residential status of the appellant from “Non Resident” to “Resident” without bringing any incriminating material or evidence on record which is highly arbitrary’ unlawful and bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts ... aforesaid judgement of Harjeev Agarwal observed that “…statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material…..”. 27. In the instant case, merely for the reason that assessee has admitted the receipt of such cash without any corroborative material, the same

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1654/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

case in confirming the decision of Ld. AO in changing residential status of the appellant from “Non Resident” to “Resident” without bringing any incriminating material or evidence on record which is highly arbitrary’ unlawful and bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts ... aforesaid judgement of Harjeev Agarwal observed that “…statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material…..”. 27. In the instant case, merely for the reason that assessee has admitted the receipt of such cash without any corroborative material, the same

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1653/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

case in confirming the decision of Ld. AO in changing residential status of the appellant from “Non Resident” to “Resident” without bringing any incriminating material or evidence on record which is highly arbitrary’ unlawful and bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts ... aforesaid judgement of Harjeev Agarwal observed that “…statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material…..”. 27. In the instant case, merely for the reason that assessee has admitted the receipt of such cash without any corroborative material, the same

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1650/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

case in confirming the decision of Ld. AO in changing residential status of the appellant from “Non Resident” to “Resident” without bringing any incriminating material or evidence on record which is highly arbitrary’ unlawful and bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts ... aforesaid judgement of Harjeev Agarwal observed that “…statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material…..”. 27. In the instant case, merely for the reason that assessee has admitted the receipt of such cash without any corroborative material, the same

DCIT Central Circle-32, New Delhi vs. Vikram Kumar Bajaj, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1737/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 131Section 153A

alleged to have been seized from the assessee's residence. The CIT(A) considered the assessee's objection that the search team found no incriminating material during the search and that the documents were misinterpreted as being linked to illegal "satta" or betting activities without proper corroboration. • Addition on Property

Kailash Radhakrishna Kshirsagar, Jalna vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1175/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Kailash Radhakrishna Kshirsagar Ito, Ward-1, Jalna Opp. Old Jalna Merchant Co-Op. Vs. Bank, Devalgaon Raja Road, Jalna-431203 Pan: Abppk6300B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 17-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore

Section 133ASection 28Section 69

which there were 4 partners including the assessee. He noted that during the course of this action certain books of account including some incriminating material were impounded and the statement of the assessee was also recorded. He observed on verification of the impounded material that the said impounded material contains

Meena Suresh Raithatha, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4813/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Deepak KanabarFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 65BSection 69

violation of the principles of natural justice as it disables the petitioners from having knowledge of the seized materials and the alleged incriminating materials relied upon by the respondent department. 22. On the next issue of refusal of cross-examination of the persons whose statements were recorded during the time

V Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle III(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 744/CHNY/2005[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Dec 2025AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T

Section 132Section 148Section 15Section 158BSection 17(1)(iv)

disclosed in the return(s) of income filed by the assessee. We find the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any incriminating material which was unearthed during the course of search in support of the disputed addition sustained by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). 30. Further, we find the taxes were

V Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle III(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 2197/CHNY/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Dec 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T

Section 132Section 148Section 15Section 158BSection 17(1)(iv)

disclosed in the return(s) of income filed by the assessee. We find the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any incriminating material which was unearthed during the course of search in support of the disputed addition sustained by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). 30. Further, we find the taxes were

Farooqi Gulamsamdani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle - 1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.814/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Farooqi Gulam Samdani, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aispg5022C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-AR

Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 69

provisions of section 153C of the Act, the only requirement is to record satisfaction and issue notice to any other person if search indicates incriminating material belongs to the other person. ITA No.814/Hyd/2025 17 However, there is no condition as to when such satisfaction has to be recorded and notice ... dumb documents which cannot be upheld. The learned Department Representative also argued that the additions made by the Assessing Officer is based on incriminating material found in the search. Although both the parties have argued that the additions made by the Assessing Officer based on the incriminating material found during

Raja Reddy Nalla, Warangal vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed for both the assessment years

ITA 550/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.549 & 550/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15) Shri Raja Reddy Nalla, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. Warangal. Pan : Aaxpn3602Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Poorna Chander Rao, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Poorna Chander Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 154Section 69

premises of the company in which the assessee is one of the Executive Director. During the course of search and seizure operation, certain incriminating material was found and from which it was noticed that the assessee along with four other persons purchased land admeasuring 56 Acres 20 Guntas ... have gone through the orders of authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that during the course of search incriminating material in the form of a diary which was seized which contains, various transactions in cash including payment for purchase of land. During the course

Raja Reddy Nalla, Warangal vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed for both the assessment years

ITA 549/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.549 & 550/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15) Shri Raja Reddy Nalla, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. Warangal. Pan : Aaxpn3602Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Poorna Chander Rao, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Poorna Chander Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 154Section 69

premises of the company in which the assessee is one of the Executive Director. During the course of search and seizure operation, certain incriminating material was found and from which it was noticed that the assessee along with four other persons purchased land admeasuring 56 Acres 20 Guntas ... have gone through the orders of authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that during the course of search incriminating material in the form of a diary which was seized which contains, various transactions in cash including payment for purchase of land. During the course

Prabhakar Reddy Basireddy, Nalgonda vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1592/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 147Section 148

void ab initio. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the reopening without (a) any incriminating material relating to AY 2020-21 found in the search on 04.01.2023, and (b) appreciating the fact that the notice u/s 148 was based only on deemed information under Explanation

Prabhakar Reddy Basireddy, Nalgonda vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1591/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Section 132Section 147Section 148

void ab initio. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the reopening without (a) any incriminating material relating to AY 2020-21 found in the search on 04.01.2023, and (b) appreciating the fact that the notice u/s 148 was based only on deemed information under Explanation

“incriminating material”

Leading authorities on incriminating material

Judgments citing incriminating material

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Das Offshore Limited, Mumbai

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Avin Rajendrakumar Agrawal, Mumbai

G S Automobiles Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, Delhi

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

DCIT Central Circle-32, New Delhi vs. Vikram Kumar Bajaj, New Delhi

Kailash Radhakrishna Kshirsagar, Jalna vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna

Meena Suresh Raithatha, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

V Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle III(4), Chennai

V Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle III(4), Chennai

Farooqi Gulamsamdani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle - 1(3), Hyderabad

Raja Reddy Nalla, Warangal vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

Raja Reddy Nalla, Warangal vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

Prabhakar Reddy Basireddy, Nalgonda vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Prabhakar Reddy Basireddy, Nalgonda vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad