← 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

Sh. Saranjit Singh, Patiala vs. ACIT, Central Circle -2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 383/CHANDI/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri Vir Sain Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

Central Circle v. Vasudev Construction* Section 158BB of the income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Undisclosed income, computation of (DVO report) - Block period 1- 4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Assessee-firm was engaged in business of construction of building and development of properties - During search, certain ... relating to assessee-firm were found and seized - Notice was issued under section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income for block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of buildings constructed by assessee- firm was referred

Sh. Shamsher Singh, Patiala vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 382/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri Vir Sain Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

Central Circle v. Vasudev Construction* Section 158BB of the income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Undisclosed income, computation of (DVO report) - Block period 1- 4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Assessee-firm was engaged in business of construction of building and development of properties - During search, certain ... relating to assessee-firm were found and seized - Notice was issued under section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income for block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of buildings constructed by assessee- firm was referred

Sh. Shamsher Singh, Patiala vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 381/CHANDI/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri Vir Sain Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

Central Circle v. Vasudev Construction* Section 158BB of the income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Undisclosed income, computation of (DVO report) - Block period 1- 4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Assessee-firm was engaged in business of construction of building and development of properties - During search, certain ... relating to assessee-firm were found and seized - Notice was issued under section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income for block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of buildings constructed by assessee- firm was referred

M/S Shivam Resorts, Abohar vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 427/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 427/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Shivam Resorts, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle -1, Malout, Hamunangarh Road, बनाम Ludhiana Bye Pass, Abohar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Accfs7094Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar,Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahus Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri Rahus Sohu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250(6)

High Court of Bombay in the case of C.J. Shah & Co. (supra) that estimation of undisclosed profit made by AO for the entire block period on the basis of seized loose papers which indicated undisclosed sales for three months was not justified. In the case of CIT v. Dolphin Builders ... High Court held as under;- "Section 158BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Undisclosed income, computation of - Block-period 1990-91 to 2000-01 - Where seized documents showed unrecorded sales, mere fact that such documents pertained to only for 112 days could

Syeda Mariam, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Bengaluru

In the result we accepted the legal issue and held that the assessment order dated 30

ITA 341/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Syeda Mariam The Income Tax Officer No. 482, 14Th Main Ward - 3(1)(4) Koramangala 3Rd Block Vs. Bmtc Building, 80Ft. Road Bangalore 560034 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Aazpm2737P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru Dated 28.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 28.07.2014. Thereafter A Survey U/S. 133A Was Conducted At The Company M/S. Intact Developers P. Ltd., In Which The Assessee Is A Director & Based On The Survey It Was Found That The Assessee Had Lent Unsecured Loans To The Company & In Support Of The Unsecured Loans The Assessee Filed Confirmation Letters From The Company. Insofar As The Source For The Loan, The Assessee Submitted That She Got Capital Gain In Ays 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Out Of This She Offered Loans To The Company. The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Verified The Details Filed By The Assessee & Came To The Conclusion That There

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 54Section 548Section 54B

held as follows: “ We conclude even for the purpose of Chapter XIV-B of the Act, for the determination of the undisclosed income for block period under the provisions of section 158BC, the provision of section 142 and sub sections (2) and (3) of section 143 are applicable