← 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

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1903/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

envisaged a search assessment being undertaken "in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years". By virtue of Finance Act, 2017 the block period for search assessment was extended to ten assessments years on account of the introduction of the concept of "relevant assessment year or years", which ... 153C was recorded on 15-5-2019, i.e., after amendment to section 153C by Finance Act, 2017 had come into effect and the block period of six assessment years was extended to ten assessment years. The Ld. ITAT had held that since the date of search in that case

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1902/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

envisaged a search assessment being undertaken "in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years". By virtue of Finance Act, 2017 the block period for search assessment was extended to ten assessments years on account of the introduction of the concept of "relevant assessment year or years", which ... 153C was recorded on 15-5-2019, i.e., after amendment to section 153C by Finance Act, 2017 had come into effect and the block period of six assessment years was extended to ten assessment years. The Ld. ITAT had held that since the date of search in that case

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1901/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

envisaged a search assessment being undertaken "in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years". By virtue of Finance Act, 2017 the block period for search assessment was extended to ten assessments years on account of the introduction of the concept of "relevant assessment year or years", which ... 153C was recorded on 15-5-2019, i.e., after amendment to section 153C by Finance Act, 2017 had come into effect and the block period of six assessment years was extended to ten assessment years. The Ld. ITAT had held that since the date of search in that case

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1900/AHD/2019[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

envisaged a search assessment being undertaken "in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years". By virtue of Finance Act, 2017 the block period for search assessment was extended to ten assessments years on account of the introduction of the concept of "relevant assessment year or years", which ... 153C was recorded on 15-5-2019, i.e., after amendment to section 153C by Finance Act, 2017 had come into effect and the block period of six assessment years was extended to ten assessment years. The Ld. ITAT had held that since the date of search in that case

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1899/AHD/2019[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

envisaged a search assessment being undertaken "in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years". By virtue of Finance Act, 2017 the block period for search assessment was extended to ten assessments years on account of the introduction of the concept of "relevant assessment year or years", which ... 153C was recorded on 15-5-2019, i.e., after amendment to section 153C by Finance Act, 2017 had come into effect and the block period of six assessment years was extended to ten assessment years. The Ld. ITAT had held that since the date of search in that case

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1898/AHD/2019[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

envisaged a search assessment being undertaken "in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years". By virtue of Finance Act, 2017 the block period for search assessment was extended to ten assessments years on account of the introduction of the concept of "relevant assessment year or years", which ... 153C was recorded on 15-5-2019, i.e., after amendment to section 153C by Finance Act, 2017 had come into effect and the block period of six assessment years was extended to ten assessment years. The Ld. ITAT had held that since the date of search in that case

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1897/AHD/2019[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

envisaged a search assessment being undertaken "in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years". By virtue of Finance Act, 2017 the block period for search assessment was extended to ten assessments years on account of the introduction of the concept of "relevant assessment year or years", which ... 153C was recorded on 15-5-2019, i.e., after amendment to section 153C by Finance Act, 2017 had come into effect and the block period of six assessment years was extended to ten assessment years. The Ld. ITAT had held that since the date of search in that case

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1896/AHD/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

envisaged a search assessment being undertaken "in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years". By virtue of Finance Act, 2017 the block period for search assessment was extended to ten assessments years on account of the introduction of the concept of "relevant assessment year or years", which ... 153C was recorded on 15-5-2019, i.e., after amendment to section 153C by Finance Act, 2017 had come into effect and the block period of six assessment years was extended to ten assessment years. The Ld. ITAT had held that since the date of search in that case

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1895/AHD/2019[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

envisaged a search assessment being undertaken "in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years". By virtue of Finance Act, 2017 the block period for search assessment was extended to ten assessments years on account of the introduction of the concept of "relevant assessment year or years", which ... 153C was recorded on 15-5-2019, i.e., after amendment to section 153C by Finance Act, 2017 had come into effect and the block period of six assessment years was extended to ten assessment years. The Ld. ITAT had held that since the date of search in that case

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1894/AHD/2019[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

envisaged a search assessment being undertaken "in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years". By virtue of Finance Act, 2017 the block period for search assessment was extended to ten assessments years on account of the introduction of the concept of "relevant assessment year or years", which ... 153C was recorded on 15-5-2019, i.e., after amendment to section 153C by Finance Act, 2017 had come into effect and the block period of six assessment years was extended to ten assessment years. The Ld. ITAT had held that since the date of search in that case

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3662/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

receipts of Rs 49,78,59,943/- as undisclosed income and apportioned it in the AYs of 2003-04 to 2009-10 of the block period. For the impugned A.Y 2005-06 and A.Y 2006-07, the AO apportioned the undisclosed income ... very elaborately discussed the issue of addition of Rs 49,78,15,413/- as undisclosed income based on suppressed sales/receipts spread over the block period from AY 2004-05 to AY 2009-10. At para 15 of his order, the CIT(A) has described the basis of addition made

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3661/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

receipts of Rs 49,78,59,943/- as undisclosed income and apportioned it in the AYs of 2003-04 to 2009-10 of the block period. For the impugned A.Y 2005-06 and A.Y 2006-07, the AO apportioned the undisclosed income ... very elaborately discussed the issue of addition of Rs 49,78,15,413/- as undisclosed income based on suppressed sales/receipts spread over the block period from AY 2004-05 to AY 2009-10. At para 15 of his order, the CIT(A) has described the basis of addition made

Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2819/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

receipts of Rs 49,78,59,943/- as undisclosed income and apportioned it in the AYs of 2003-04 to 2009-10 of the block period. For the impugned A.Y 2005-06 and A.Y 2006-07, the AO apportioned the undisclosed income ... very elaborately discussed the issue of addition of Rs 49,78,15,413/- as undisclosed income based on suppressed sales/receipts spread over the block period from AY 2004-05 to AY 2009-10. At para 15 of his order, the CIT(A) has described the basis of addition made

Mahugun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2818/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

receipts of Rs 49,78,59,943/- as undisclosed income and apportioned it in the AYs of 2003-04 to 2009-10 of the block period. For the impugned A.Y 2005-06 and A.Y 2006-07, the AO apportioned the undisclosed income ... very elaborately discussed the issue of addition of Rs 49,78,15,413/- as undisclosed income based on suppressed sales/receipts spread over the block period from AY 2004-05 to AY 2009-10. At para 15 of his order, the CIT(A) has described the basis of addition made

Rashleela Enterprises Private Limited, Jaipur vs. The PCIT (Central), Jaipur

ITA 461/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153DSection 263

assessee belongs. During the course of search, various assets, books of accounts and documents were seized and re- assessment proceedings were initiated for the block period covered under the search. It is reiterated assessee filed his return of income u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 declaring the total

Ramdas Chabaji Dhankude, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 822/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

appellant. Based on this, the period of ten years would have to be computed from 31.03.2021 and in the light of this position the block period of ten assessment years would be as follows : Computation of the ten-year No. of block period as provided u/s.153C years r.w.s. 153A ... From the above table, it would be clear that AY 2020-21 forms the first year of the block period of ten assessment years and would be ending on AY 2011-12. The assessment years 2010-11 and 2009-10 shall fall outside the block period of ten assessment years

Sarangabani Kirubakaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1234/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1233/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1234/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami,(Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2009- 10 & 2011-12 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act. During Hearing, Ld. Ar Raised A Pertinent Additional Ground Of Appeal To Submit That Considering The Date Of Satisfaction Note, These Assessments Are Liable To Be Quashed Being Barred By Limitation. Reliance Has Been Placed On The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Jasjit Singh (155 Taxmann.Com 155). The Copy Of The Same Has Been Placed On Record. The Additional Ground Of Appeal Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami,(Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

time barred. The satisfaction note was made by the Assessing Officer on 21.09.2021, which falls in Assessment Year 2022-23 and therefore the block period for issuing notice u/s 153C read with section 153A would be form AY 2012-13 to AY 2021-22 (10 AYs immediately preceding year ... addition of the stipulation of "relevant assessment year" and which was defined to mean those years which would fall beyond the six year block period but not later than ten AYs'. The block period for search assessment thus came to be enlarged to stretch

Sarangabani Kribakaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle1(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1233/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1233/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1234/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami,(Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2009- 10 & 2011-12 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act. During Hearing, Ld. Ar Raised A Pertinent Additional Ground Of Appeal To Submit That Considering The Date Of Satisfaction Note, These Assessments Are Liable To Be Quashed Being Barred By Limitation. Reliance Has Been Placed On The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Jasjit Singh (155 Taxmann.Com 155). The Copy Of The Same Has Been Placed On Record. The Additional Ground Of Appeal Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami,(Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

time barred. The satisfaction note was made by the Assessing Officer on 21.09.2021, which falls in Assessment Year 2022-23 and therefore the block period for issuing notice u/s 153C read with section 153A would be form AY 2012-13 to AY 2021-22 (10 AYs immediately preceding year ... addition of the stipulation of "relevant assessment year" and which was defined to mean those years which would fall beyond the six year block period but not later than ten AYs'. The block period for search assessment thus came to be enlarged to stretch

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Rajiv Agarwal, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the appellant for AYs

ITA 2629/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153C

section 153A(1)], is only relevant for determining the "date", as on which, any pending assessment or reassessment, if any, falling within the block period, is needed to be abated, and the same has no relevance in deciding the seven (1+6) years needed to be selected for scrutiny ... legislature in respect of section 153C of the Act and insertion of clarificatory text vide Finance Act, 2017, it was held that the block period as applicable to a notice under Section 153C would be the same as the years constituting the block period in the case of the notice

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Rajiv Agarwal, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the appellant for AYs

ITA 2628/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153C

section 153A(1)], is only relevant for determining the "date", as on which, any pending assessment or reassessment, if any, falling within the block period, is needed to be abated, and the same has no relevance in deciding the seven (1+6) years needed to be selected for scrutiny ... legislature in respect of section 153C of the Act and insertion of clarificatory text vide Finance Act, 2017, it was held that the block period as applicable to a notice under Section 153C would be the same as the years constituting the block period in the case of the notice