← 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

Bhavishaben Hareshbhai Rathod, Rajkot vs. Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 253/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.253/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bhavishaben Hareshbhai Rathod The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) बनाम Shop No. 7, Hairline Unisex Salon Rajkot Amin Marg, Gujarat Housing Board Vs. Rajkot Gujarat 360001 Pan : Aespr4119R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21/07/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Separate Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 27.02.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 144 Of The Act. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. That, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Order Passed Without Serving The Statutory Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Order Passed U/S 144(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Shri Bhavinshaben Hareshbhai Rathodi

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

Court in the case of Devendranath G Chaturvedi,[2017] 83 taxmann.com 141 ( Guj-HC), wherein it was held as follows: “IT: Where return for block period fled by assessee belatedly was not discarded as invalid, in such a case, if Assessing Officer wanted to frame assessment at higher income