← All Phrases

“block period”

Chapter XIV-B - Block AssessmentSection 158B - Block PeriodSection 158B(a)1,340 judgments

The decision most relied on for block period is CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears (362 ITR 673), cited in 528 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on block period

CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears
362 ITR 673 · 2014 · Supreme Court
528
citing judgments

The recording of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional prerequisite for assessments under Section 153C, and the six-year limitation period for such assessments is reckoned from the date this satisfaction is recorded.

PCIT v. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd.
465 ITR 101 · 2024 · High Court
277
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, the commencement point for calculating the six or ten assessment year block period is the date of issuing the Section 153C notice, or the date of the satisfaction note/handing over of books, as clarified by the first proviso to Section 153C(1).

Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT
36 Taxmann.com 523 · 2013 · High Court
267
citing judgments

An assessee cannot claim deductions or expenditures in a Section 153A assessment that were not claimed in the original completed assessment, even if documents were found during a search.

CIT v. Jasjit Singh
155 Taxmann.com 155 · 2023 · Supreme Court
235
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C concerning a non-searched person, the relevant date for calculating the block of assessment years is the date on which the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of that person assumes possession of the seized material, not the date of the original search. This date determines the look-back period for reopening assessments under Section 153A read with 153C.

Indian National Congress v. DCIT
463 ITR 431 · 2024 · High Court
167
citing judgments

A consolidated satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years is valid for initiating proceedings under section 153C, provided the seized material and the additions rest on incriminating evidence pertaining to those years.

Pr. CIT v. Sarwar Agency P. Ltd.
397 ITR 400 · 2017 · High Court
95
citing judgments

An assessment initiated under Section 153C against a person other than the searched person is invalid if the Assessing Officer of the searched person fails to record a proper satisfaction note as mandated by the section. The procedural requirement of a satisfaction note is crucial for the validity of such an assessment.

CIT, Panji v. Dempo Company Limited
74 Taxmann.com 15 · 2016 · Supreme Court
62
citing judgments

The 20% tax rate under Section 112 applies to capital gains arising from the transfer of a depreciable asset, even if it is deemed a short-term capital gain under Section 50, provided the asset was held for more than 36 months. The fiction created by Section 50 for treating such gains as short-term does not alter the long-term nature of the asset for applying the tax rate under Section 112.

CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and CIT v. Chetan Das Lachman Das
254 CTR 392 · 2012 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Additions cannot be made to assessments under Sections 153A and 153C if no incriminating material was found during a search operation. Assessments for each year preceding the search are distinct and separate.

Judgments citing block period

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mohanlal Jewellers Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1393/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1178 To 1182/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021-22 M/S. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Old No.68-69, Nsc Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 001. V. The Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai. [Pan: Aafcm 9906 M] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1393 To 1397/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai. V. M/S. Mohanlal – Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Old No.68-69, Nsc Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aafcm 9906 M] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 घोषणा क तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

entire set of daily reports on the basis of which consolidated entries were made in J- Pack Software, was not available for the relevant block period. In this background therefore and due to non-availability of data / source documentation, the AO was not able to segregate or identify

Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

ITA 1178/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1178 To 1182/Chny/2025 िनधारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021-22 M/S. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Old No.68-69, Nsc Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 001. V. The Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai. [Pan: Aafcm 9906 M] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रत्यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1393 To 1397/Chny/2025 िनधारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai. V. M/S. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Old No.68-69, Nsc Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aafcm 9906 M] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रत्यथ/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

entire set of daily reports on the basis of which consolidated entries were made in J- Pack Software, was not available for the relevant block period. In this background therefore and due to non-availability of data / source documentation, the AO was not able to segregate or identify

Arun Duggal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3075/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Arun Duggal, Vs Dcit, 3E-42, Nit, Faridabad, Central Circle-1, Haryana-121001. Faridabad. Pan-Agupd5708Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Gurgaon [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.617/Cit(A)-3/Ggn/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Heard By The Co-Ordinate “E” Bench Of The Tribunal & Was Decided In Terms Of Order Dated 01.04.2022 Wherein Co-Ordinate Bench Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) Bearing No.100/Del/2022 U/S 254(2) Of The Act. The Co-Ordinate Bench Vide Its Order Dated 09.04.2025 Has Decided The M.A. Filed By Assessee Wherein Order Of Co-Ordinate Bench Dated 04.01.2022 Is Recalled For The Limited Purposes Of Adjudication Of Three Grounds Of Appeal Taken In The Original Form 36. These Grounds Of Appeal Are Bearing Nos.1.2, 1.8 & 5. The Relevant Observations Of The Co-Ordinate Bench In Para 16 Of The Order Of Ma Are As Under:-

Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 254(2)Section 68

black Assessment- Search was conducted at residential and business premises of Assessee and notice for block assessment u/s. 158-BC was issued- For block period, returns were filed that were processed u/s. 143 (1)- However, notice u/s. 148 was issued by AO, on basis of certain reasons recorded-Assessee objected