← 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

Sreekumari Amma, Thiruvananthapuram vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 602/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Shri Vinod Kumar Kuttappan. The assessee is the Managing Director of Keranadu Printing and Publishing (P) Ltd. and Nightingale College of Nursing, Trivandrum. Warrant of authorisation was also served on the assessee and accordingly, a notice u/s. 153A was served on the assessee. The assessee response to the notice

Sreekumari Amma, Thiruvananthapuram vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 601/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Shri Vinod Kumar Kuttappan. The assessee is the Managing Director of Keranadu Printing and Publishing (P) Ltd. and Nightingale College of Nursing, Trivandrum. Warrant of authorisation was also served on the assessee and accordingly, a notice u/s. 153A was served on the assessee. The assessee response to the notice

Geetha Mehra, Chennai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 4039/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. Geetha Mehra, Acit (3)(1)(1), C/O Synergy Art Foundation Ltd., Room No. 607, Aayakar Vs. 6/19 Ii Floor, Grants Building Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400020. (Formerly Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 44) Pan No. Aagpm 9039 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ajay Ghone, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Kailash Kanojia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ajay Ghone, AR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

bill is incurred py the appellant. During the search and telephone bill is incurred py the appellant. During the search and seizure action warrant of authorisation w seizure action warrant of authorisation was issued in the name of the as issued in the name of the appellant at the residence

Geetha Mehra, Chennai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 4038/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. Geetha Mehra, Acit (3)(1)(1), C/O Synergy Art Foundation Ltd., Room No. 607, Aayakar Vs. 6/19 Ii Floor, Grants Building Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400020. (Formerly Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 44) Pan No. Aagpm 9039 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ajay Ghone, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Kailash Kanojia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ajay Ghone, AR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

bill is incurred py the appellant. During the search and telephone bill is incurred py the appellant. During the search and seizure action warrant of authorisation w seizure action warrant of authorisation was issued in the name of the as issued in the name of the appellant at the residence

Geetha Mehra, Chennai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 4037/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. Geetha Mehra, Acit (3)(1)(1), C/O Synergy Art Foundation Ltd., Room No. 607, Aayakar Vs. 6/19 Ii Floor, Grants Building Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400020. (Formerly Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 44) Pan No. Aagpm 9039 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ajay Ghone, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Kailash Kanojia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ajay Ghone, AR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

bill is incurred py the appellant. During the search and telephone bill is incurred py the appellant. During the search and seizure action warrant of authorisation w seizure action warrant of authorisation was issued in the name of the as issued in the name of the appellant at the residence

Geetha Mehra, Chennai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 4036/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. Geetha Mehra, Acit (3)(1)(1), C/O Synergy Art Foundation Ltd., Room No. 607, Aayakar Vs. 6/19 Ii Floor, Grants Building Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400020. (Formerly Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 44) Pan No. Aagpm 9039 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ajay Ghone, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Kailash Kanojia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ajay Ghone, AR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

bill is incurred py the appellant. During the search and telephone bill is incurred py the appellant. During the search and seizure action warrant of authorisation w seizure action warrant of authorisation was issued in the name of the as issued in the name of the appellant at the residence

Geetha Mehra, Chennai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 4035/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. Geetha Mehra, Acit (3)(1)(1), C/O Synergy Art Foundation Ltd., Room No. 607, Aayakar Vs. 6/19 Ii Floor, Grants Building Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400020. (Formerly Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 44) Pan No. Aagpm 9039 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ajay Ghone, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Kailash Kanojia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ajay Ghone, AR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

bill is incurred py the appellant. During the search and telephone bill is incurred py the appellant. During the search and seizure action warrant of authorisation w seizure action warrant of authorisation was issued in the name of the as issued in the name of the appellant at the residence

Hariyappa Kotian, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 430/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 139Section 143Section 153DSection 263

sectors and loan taken and given. A search and seizure action which was conducted in the assessee’s premises on 08/02/2018 under a warrant of authorisation u/s 132 and notice u/s 153C was issued to the assessee. During the course of search proceedings, two diaries were found and declared Rs.1.00

Sri C Anil Rahashekar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1733/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri G.S Prashanth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153C

submitted that the search under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the assessee’s premises on 25.10.2010 based on the warrant of authorisation dated 22.10.2010 issued in the name of the assessee. It is submitted that the warrant of authorisation was in the name of the assessee ... Panchanama was prepared on the said date as per which the warrant was issued in the name of the assessee and the said warrant of authorisation was shown to the assessee by the authorised officer in presence of the Panchas. It is submitted that the assessee had furnished the copy

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Gokula Education Foundation (Medical), Bengaluru

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 509/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

provisions of section 292BB of the Act. This objection is also rejected. 15. The appellant has also questioned the validity of the very warrant of authorisation of search. The explanation to section 132(1), does not empower the CIT (A) to look into this issue and decide on-the same

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Gokula Education Foundation (Medical), Bengaluru

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 508/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

provisions of section 292BB of the Act. This objection is also rejected. 15. The appellant has also questioned the validity of the very warrant of authorisation of search. The explanation to section 132(1), does not empower the CIT (A) to look into this issue and decide on-the same

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Gokula Education Foundation (Medical), Bengaluru

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 501/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

provisions of section 292BB of the Act. This objection is also rejected. 15. The appellant has also questioned the validity of the very warrant of authorisation of search. The explanation to section 132(1), does not empower the CIT (A) to look into this issue and decide on-the same

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Gokula Education Foundation (Medical), Bengaluru

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 500/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

provisions of section 292BB of the Act. This objection is also rejected. 15. The appellant has also questioned the validity of the very warrant of authorisation of search. The explanation to section 132(1), does not empower the CIT (A) to look into this issue and decide on-the same

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Gokula Education Foundation (Medical), Bengaluru

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 499/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

provisions of section 292BB of the Act. This objection is also rejected. 15. The appellant has also questioned the validity of the very warrant of authorisation of search. The explanation to section 132(1), does not empower the CIT (A) to look into this issue and decide on-the same

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Chaitanya Properties Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 43C

restored.” 2. Facts of the case are that there was a search in the case of Srinivas Trust on 23.9.2016 vide warrant of authorisation dated 22.9.2016. As per the information received from the Assessing Officer of the searched person i.e. M/s. Srinivasa Trust it is found that during the course

M/S. Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 69/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Prestige Estates Projects The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Prestige Falcon Tower, Income Tax, No. 19, Brunton Road, Central Circle – 1 Bangalore – North, (1), Bangalore – 560 025. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcp8096K Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 23.11.2021 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. General Ground 1.1 The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru (`Ao") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act-) In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

omissions and other miscellaneous issues which cannot be deleted. 4. He submitted that assessee is in the business of real estate. Pursuant to warrant of authorisation dated 09.10.2013, search was carried out in various premises of assessee at several places and some panchanamas was drawn in respect of each place

M/S.Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-40, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1291/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Porwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 153ASection 153BSection 37Section 68

1292/Mum/2018 M/s Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. Ltd. & Balaji Bullion & commodities (I) P. Ltd.; A.Y. 09–10 person in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued;” 2.17. Thus, the search will be deemed to be concluded on the basis of last panchnama drawn in relation to the person

M/S. Murudeshwar Ceramics Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed, except ITA No

ITA 442/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A KulkalrniFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Nos.434 to 442/Bang/2020 Page 13 of 20 No. under the provisions of Section 153A of the Act as there was a valid warrant of authorisation u/s. 132 issued to the assessee. Being so, the assessments in these assessment years are validly framed and hence we dismiss this ground of appeal

M/S. Murudeshwar Ceramics Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed, except ITA No

ITA 441/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A KulkalrniFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Nos.434 to 442/Bang/2020 Page 13 of 20 No. under the provisions of Section 153A of the Act as there was a valid warrant of authorisation u/s. 132 issued to the assessee. Being so, the assessments in these assessment years are validly framed and hence we dismiss this ground of appeal

M/S. Murudeshwar Ceramics Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed, except ITA No

ITA 440/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A KulkalrniFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Nos.434 to 442/Bang/2020 Page 13 of 20 No. under the provisions of Section 153A of the Act as there was a valid warrant of authorisation u/s. 132 issued to the assessee. Being so, the assessments in these assessment years are validly framed and hence we dismiss this ground of appeal