← 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

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 439/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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 438/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

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 437/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

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 436/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

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 435/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

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, Bangalore 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 434/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 2(3), Bangaluru vs. Shri T.H Suresh Babu, Bellary

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1890/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Sivaprasad Reddy, ITP
Section 133A(5)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)

search, on the conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchnama drawn in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued; (b) in the case of requisition under section 132A, on the actual receipt of the books of account or other documents

Mr. B.Nagendra, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1946/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

assume jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act. The appellant is entitled to ask for the copy of the Warrant of Authorisation, copy of the satisfaction note and copy of the material including belief for issuance of the warrant of authorisation to contend before this Tribunal

Mr. B.Nagendra, Belgium vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1945/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

assume jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act. The appellant is entitled to ask for the copy of the Warrant of Authorisation, copy of the satisfaction note and copy of the material including belief for issuance of the warrant of authorisation to contend before this Tribunal

Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.1766/Del

ITA 1770/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

BECAUSE there being no incriminating material found during the course of search and seizure action carried 5. out in pursuance of joint warrant of authorisation dated 31.10.2013, nor any such information/material being 13 ITA.Nos.1766 to 1770/Del./2018 Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. collected or otherwise becoming available

Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.1766/Del

ITA 1769/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

BECAUSE there being no incriminating material found during the course of search and seizure action carried 5. out in pursuance of joint warrant of authorisation dated 31.10.2013, nor any such information/material being 13 ITA.Nos.1766 to 1770/Del./2018 Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. collected or otherwise becoming available

Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.1766/Del

ITA 1768/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

BECAUSE there being no incriminating material found during the course of search and seizure action carried 5. out in pursuance of joint warrant of authorisation dated 31.10.2013, nor any such information/material being 13 ITA.Nos.1766 to 1770/Del./2018 Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. collected or otherwise becoming available

Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.1766/Del

ITA 1767/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

BECAUSE there being no incriminating material found during the course of search and seizure action carried 5. out in pursuance of joint warrant of authorisation dated 31.10.2013, nor any such information/material being 13 ITA.Nos.1766 to 1770/Del./2018 Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. collected or otherwise becoming available

Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.1766/Del

ITA 1766/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

BECAUSE there being no incriminating material found during the course of search and seizure action carried 5. out in pursuance of joint warrant of authorisation dated 31.10.2013, nor any such information/material being 13 ITA.Nos.1766 to 1770/Del./2018 Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. collected or otherwise becoming available

Commissioner of Income Tax Central III vs. Shilpi Securities Pvt Ltd

ITA - 130 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

impugned decision dated 30.4.2008, block assessment proceedings in respect of all these assessees are again quashed on the following two grounds:- a) The warrants of authorisation in respect of many assessees were vague. b) In certain cases, warrants were signed by the Additional Director of Income ... first ground accepted by the Tribunal is concerned, according to the Tribunal, following infirmities were found in various warrants of authorisation:- i) In the case of M/s. Independent Courier Pvt. Ltd., name is incorrectly mentioned in the warrants as “M/s. Independent Courier”. Further, in the search warrant no details have