seized material — 12,214 case laws

Kasiredday Ranadheer Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 887/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)

preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the purported amount as per the seized material pertains to FY 2008-09 and therefore can be brought to tax for AY 2009-10 only, if at all required ... relevant date for the purpose of computing the six assessment years proceedings under section 153C of the Act is the date on which the seized material is recorded as belonging to the other person, that is, the date of recording satisfaction or issuance of notice under section 153C

Kasiredday Ranadheer Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 886/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 259Section 69

preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the purported amount as per the seized material pertains to FY 2008-09 and therefore can be brought to tax for AY 2009-10 only, if at all required ... relevant date for the purpose of computing the six assessment years proceedings under section 153C of the Act is the date on which the seized material is recorded as belonging to the other person, that is, the date of recording satisfaction or issuance of notice under section 153C

Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 885/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 259Section 69

preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the purported amount as per the seized material pertains to FY 2008-09 and therefore can be brought to tax for AY 2009-10 only, if at all required ... relevant date for the purpose of computing the six assessment years proceedings under section 153C of the Act is the date on which the seized material is recorded as belonging to the other person, that is, the date of recording satisfaction or issuance of notice under section 153C

Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 884/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 259Section 69

preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the purported amount as per the seized material pertains to FY 2008-09 and therefore can be brought to tax for AY 2009-10 only, if at all required ... relevant date for the purpose of computing the six assessment years proceedings under section 153C of the Act is the date on which the seized material is recorded as belonging to the other person, that is, the date of recording satisfaction or issuance of notice under section 153C

Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 883/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 259Section 69

preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the purported amount as per the seized material pertains to FY 2008-09 and therefore can be brought to tax for AY 2009-10 only, if at all required ... relevant date for the purpose of computing the six assessment years proceedings under section 153C of the Act is the date on which the seized material is recorded as belonging to the other person, that is, the date of recording satisfaction or issuance of notice under section 153C

Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 882/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 259Section 69

preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the purported amount as per the seized material pertains to FY 2008-09 and therefore can be brought to tax for AY 2009-10 only, if at all required ... relevant date for the purpose of computing the six assessment years proceedings under section 153C of the Act is the date on which the seized material is recorded as belonging to the other person, that is, the date of recording satisfaction or issuance of notice under section 153C

Mystical Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is Allowed

ITA 5222/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalι.Τ.Α. No.5222/Mum/2024 A.Y: 2011-12 Mystical Pvt Ltd Constructions A 603, A1 Akbar Bldg, Pe Road, Momin Nagar, Jogeswari (W), Mumbai - 400102 Pan - Aaccn5191N (Appellant) Vs Dcit, Circle 5(2)(1) Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai. (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Simran Dhawan A/W Mr. Ravi Gantara Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 Order Per: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt. 06.08.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)Section 274

procedure should have followed provisions outlined u/s section 153C of the Act as the basis of information for reopening the assessment relied solely on seized material unearthed at a premises owned by an individual during the course of search proceedings u/s 132 of the Act associated with the Bhoomi Group ... search action u/s 132 of the Act, carried out in the case of Ekta&Bhoomi group on 05.10.2015. The Contents of the seized material in digital form as communicated by the AO in the notice u/s 142(1) dated 03.12.2018 during reassessment proceedings are as under: CONWOOD (MAHUL

Arvindkumar Mahendrakumar Goyal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1192/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

Mahendrakumar Goyal Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2019-20 - 2– 4. The learned CIT (A) grossly erred in not confronting the statement related to that seized material in the case of third party and not allowing cross examination thereof.” 3. The details relating to the issuance of notice under section