← All Phrases

“warrant of authorisation”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 132175 judgments

The decision most relied on for warrant of authorisation is 11 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 4) In Maa Vaishnavi Sponge Ltd. v. DGIT (21 Taxmann.com 512), cited in 20 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on warrant of authorisation

11 Index Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. 4) In Maa Vaishnavi Sponge Ltd. v. DGIT
21 Taxmann.com 512 · 2012 · High Court
20
citing judgments

An order under section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act can only be passed if the authorized officer believes a specific asset found during a search represents undisclosed income. It cannot be used to ascertain if transactions in accounts represent undisclosed income, nor is an order under section 132(8A) automatic.

MDLR Resorts Private Limited v. CIT
40 Taxmann.com 365 · 2013 · High Court
14
citing judgments

A search is held to be valid when conducted under similar facts and circumstances, as decided by the Delhi High Court.

Ajit Jain v. Union of India
242 ITR 302 · 2000 · High Court
13
citing judgments

A preliminary report from the CBI does not constitute 'information' sufficient for an income-tax officer to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, which is a prerequisite for authorizing a search.

Judgments citing warrant of authorisation

Mr Ismail Muhammad Khan, Mumbai vs. Assisatnt Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4286/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

case of Index logistics Private Limited is as as under: 1) In the present case a Search was authorised on the Assessee vide warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. 2) Accordingly, Search in the case of Assessee commenced on 24/3/2021 and ended on 26/3/2021 on which day a Panchnama was prepared ... cabin of one Prakash Nair. 4) Thereafter, on 24/05/2021, the search team visited the premises of the Assessee based on earlier warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. The SIM cards and data back from CP1I were seized statement of Mr Ismail Khan was recorded. Panchnama was drawn dated 24/05/2021

Ismail Muhammad Khan, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4273/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

case of Index logistics Private Limited is as as under: 1) In the present case a Search was authorised on the Assessee vide warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. 2) Accordingly, Search in the case of Assessee commenced on 24/3/2021 and ended on 26/3/2021 on which day a Panchnama was prepared ... cabin of one Prakash Nair. 4) Thereafter, on 24/05/2021, the search team visited the premises of the Assessee based on earlier warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. The SIM cards and data back from CP1I were seized statement of Mr Ismail Khan was recorded. Panchnama was drawn dated 24/05/2021

Ismail Muhammad Khan, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-1 (2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4272/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

case of Index logistics Private Limited is as as under: 1) In the present case a Search was authorised on the Assessee vide warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. 2) Accordingly, Search in the case of Assessee commenced on 24/3/2021 and ended on 26/3/2021 on which day a Panchnama was prepared ... cabin of one Prakash Nair. 4) Thereafter, on 24/05/2021, the search team visited the premises of the Assessee based on earlier warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. The SIM cards and data back from CP1I were seized statement of Mr Ismail Khan was recorded. Panchnama was drawn dated 24/05/2021

Ismail Muhammad Khan, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the

ITA 4267/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

case of Index logistics Private Limited is as as under: 1) In the present case a Search was authorised on the Assessee vide warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. 2) Accordingly, Search in the case of Assessee commenced on 24/3/2021 and ended on 26/3/2021 on which day a Panchnama was prepared ... cabin of one Prakash Nair. 4) Thereafter, on 24/05/2021, the search team visited the premises of the Assessee based on earlier warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. The SIM cards and data back from CP1I were seized statement of Mr Ismail Khan was recorded. Panchnama was drawn dated_24/05/2021

M/S. Index Logistics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3362/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

case of Index logistics Private Limited is as as under: 1) In the present case a Search was authorised on the Assessee vide warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. 2) Accordingly, Search in the case of Assessee commenced on 24/3/2021 and ended on 26/3/2021 on which day a Panchnama was prepared ... cabin of one Prakash Nair. 4) Thereafter, on 24/05/2021, the search team visited the premises of the Assessee based on earlier warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. The SIM cards and data back from CP1I were seized statement of Mr Ismail Khan was recorded. Panchnama was drawn dated 24/05/2021

M/S. Index Logistics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3361/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

case of Index logistics Private Limited is as as under: 1) In the present case a Search was authorised on the Assessee vide warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. 2) Accordingly, Search in the case of Assessee commenced on 24/3/2021 and ended on 26/3/2021 on which day a Panchnama was prepared ... cabin of one Prakash Nair. 4) Thereafter, on 24/05/2021, the search team visited the premises of the Assessee based on earlier warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. The SIM cards and data back from CP1I were seized statement of Mr Ismail Khan was recorded. Panchnama was drawn dated 24/05/2021

M/S. Index Logistics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3360/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

case of Index logistics Private Limited is as as under: 1) In the present case a Search was authorised on the Assessee vide warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. 2) Accordingly, Search in the case of Assessee commenced on 24/3/2021 and ended on 26/3/2021 on which day a Panchnama was prepared ... cabin of one Prakash Nair. 4) Thereafter, on 24/05/2021, the search team visited the premises of the Assessee based on earlier warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. The SIM cards and data back from CP1I were seized statement of Mr Ismail Khan was recorded. Panchnama was drawn dated 24/05/2021

M/S. Index Logistics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3347/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

case of Index logistics Private Limited is as as under: 1) In the present case a Search was authorised on the Assessee vide warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. 2) Accordingly, Search in the case of Assessee commenced on 24/3/2021 and ended on 26/3/2021 on which day a Panchnama was prepared ... cabin of one Prakash Nair. 4) Thereafter, on 24/05/2021, the search team visited the premises of the Assessee based on earlier warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. The SIM cards and data back from CP1I were seized statement of Mr Ismail Khan was recorded. Panchnama was drawn dated 24/05/2021

M/S. Index Logistics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3346/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

case of Index logistics Private Limited is as as under: 1) In the present case a Search was authorised on the Assessee vide warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. 2) Accordingly, Search in the case of Assessee commenced on 24/3/2021 and ended on 26/3/2021 on which day a Panchnama was prepared ... cabin of one Prakash Nair. 4) Thereafter, on 24/05/2021, the search team visited the premises of the Assessee based on earlier warrant of authorisation dated 23/3/2021. The SIM cards and data back from CP1I were seized statement of Mr Ismail Khan was recorded. Panchnama was drawn dated 24/05/2021

M/S. Eagle Traders & Logistics, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

ITA 235/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

Permanent Account Number : ADKPN9671M. 14.11.2011. A search action U/s.132 was initiated in the case of Sri.B.Nagendra on 25.10.2010 as per the Warrant of Authorisation dated 22.10.2010 issued U/s.132 which was duly signed by the Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Bangalore. Hence, a notice calling for the returns of income

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udiapur, Udaipur

ITA 709/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

inserted by the Finance Act 2017 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962. 4. Regarding the objection of the appellant against the common warrant of authorisation, in addition to the finding in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is submitted that the same is expressly covered by the section 292CC

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1 Udaipur, Udaipur

ITA 708/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

inserted by the Finance Act 2017 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962. 4. Regarding the objection of the appellant against the common warrant of authorisation, in addition to the finding in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is submitted that the same is expressly covered by the section 292CC

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT- Central Circle-1 Udiapur, Udaipue

ITA 707/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

inserted by the Finance Act 2017 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962. 4. Regarding the objection of the appellant against the common warrant of authorisation, in addition to the finding in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is submitted that the same is expressly covered by the section 292CC

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

inserted by the Finance Act 2017 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962. 4. Regarding the objection of the appellant against the common warrant of authorisation, in addition to the finding in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is submitted that the same is expressly covered by the section 292CC ... inserted by the Finance Act 2017 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962. 4. Regarding the objection of the appellant against the common warrant of authorisation, in addition to the finding in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is submitted that the same is expressly covered by the section 292CC

Protein Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

ITA 591/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

material before him, the first respondent could not have formed the requisite opinion as required under section 132A of the Act. The warrant of authorisation issued by the first . ITA No.334-339, 586-591 & 1566/Bang/2024 Page 18 of 24 respondent, therefore, stands vitiated as having been issued without the condition precedent ... material on record could not have formed the requisite belief under section 132A of the Act and as such, the impugned warrant of authorisation under section 132A of the Act cannot be sustained. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The warrant of authorisation dated

Protein Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

ITA 590/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

material before him, the first respondent could not have formed the requisite opinion as required under section 132A of the Act. The warrant of authorisation issued by the first . ITA No.334-339, 586-591 & 1566/Bang/2024 Page 18 of 24 respondent, therefore, stands vitiated as having been issued without the condition precedent ... material on record could not have formed the requisite belief under section 132A of the Act and as such, the impugned warrant of authorisation under section 132A of the Act cannot be sustained. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The warrant of authorisation dated

Protein Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

ITA 589/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

material before him, the first respondent could not have formed the requisite opinion as required under section 132A of the Act. The warrant of authorisation issued by the first . ITA No.334-339, 586-591 & 1566/Bang/2024 Page 18 of 24 respondent, therefore, stands vitiated as having been issued without the condition precedent ... material on record could not have formed the requisite belief under section 132A of the Act and as such, the impugned warrant of authorisation under section 132A of the Act cannot be sustained. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The warrant of authorisation dated

Protein Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

ITA 588/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

material before him, the first respondent could not have formed the requisite opinion as required under section 132A of the Act. The warrant of authorisation issued by the first . ITA No.334-339, 586-591 & 1566/Bang/2024 Page 18 of 24 respondent, therefore, stands vitiated as having been issued without the condition precedent ... material on record could not have formed the requisite belief under section 132A of the Act and as such, the impugned warrant of authorisation under section 132A of the Act cannot be sustained. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The warrant of authorisation dated

Protein Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

ITA 587/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

material before him, the first respondent could not have formed the requisite opinion as required under section 132A of the Act. The warrant of authorisation issued by the first . ITA No.334-339, 586-591 & 1566/Bang/2024 Page 18 of 24 respondent, therefore, stands vitiated as having been issued without the condition precedent ... material on record could not have formed the requisite belief under section 132A of the Act and as such, the impugned warrant of authorisation under section 132A of the Act cannot be sustained. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The warrant of authorisation dated

Protein Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

ITA 586/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133A

material before him, the first respondent could not have formed the requisite opinion as required under section 132A of the Act. The warrant of authorisation issued by the first . ITA No.334-339, 586-591 & 1566/Bang/2024 Page 18 of 24 respondent, therefore, stands vitiated as having been issued without the condition precedent ... material on record could not have formed the requisite belief under section 132A of the Act and as such, the impugned warrant of authorisation under section 132A of the Act cannot be sustained. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The warrant of authorisation dated