← All Phrases

“seized material”

Search & SeizureSection 153ASection 153A12,214 judgments

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

Leading authorities on seized material

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.

ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co.
163 Taxmann.com 118 · 2024 · Supreme Court
500
citing judgments

Strict adherence to approval protocols under Section 153D, including those in the Departmental Manual of Office Procedure, is essential for search assessments. An assessment is invalid if the approving authority fails to apply its mind or consider all relevant seized material before granting approval.

ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
394 ITR 569 · 2017 · High Court
282
citing judgments

For initiating proceedings under Section 153C, seized documents must be incriminating and specifically relate to the assessment years for which assessments are reopened. A document relevant only for one year cannot be used to reopen other assessment years without being incriminating for those years.

CIT v. Ashwani Gupta
322 ITR 396 · 2010 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Proceedings become fatal if principles of natural justice are violated, such as when seized material is not provided to the assessee or cross-examination of a person whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon is denied.

Mumbai), DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal
82 ITD 85 · 2002 · ITAT
237
citing judgments

Evidence corroborating entries of payments or loan/interest advancements found in seized material from a third party must specifically show the actual transfer of money from the third party to the recipient to be admissible.

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.

Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
161 Taxmann.com 485 · 2024 · High Court
196
citing judgments

Recording satisfaction under Section 153C for initiating proceedings against a third person is not a mechanical exercise; it requires a finding that seized material has a direct bearing on the third person's income, and improper satisfaction vitiates the assessment. Abatement under the second proviso to Section 153A is an inevitable consequence of a search, irrespective of the Assessing Officer's opinion on the material's impact.

PCIT v. Anuj Bansal
165 Taxmann.com 2 · 2024 · High Court
181
citing judgments

An approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is considered mechanical and invalid if granted without application of mind and without perusing relevant assessment records, including seized material. This principle has been affirmed by multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Judgments citing seized material

Bhajan Lal Suresh Chandra Sarraf, Ajmer vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 135/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Dec 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT)
Section 115Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

books of accounts etc. and the AO examined as per the details given in the return, documents supplied during the course of hearing and seized material. The AO completed the assessment for the year under consideration under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2019 determining

Dr. Hitesh A Patel, Himmatnagar vs. The ACIT, Circle Himmatnagar, Sabarkantha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 96/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.96 /Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dr. Hitesh A. Patel, Income Tax Officer, C/O Harsh Hospital, Vs. S.K. Ward-3, Umiya Complex, Himatnagar. Nr. Mehta Petrol Pump, Himatnagar-383001. Pan: Abepp1040J

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 133A

DCIT reported in 102 ITD 375 where it was held as under: A.Y. 2009-10 5 On a perusal of the seized material, it was to be seen that the assessee was found in possession of meticulous record regarding monies received in respect of various godowns and shops

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Skyline Construction, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132(1)Section 133A

opportunity to cross examine persons whose statements have been referred to by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer did not furnish copies of seized materials on which he was placing reliance. Opportunity to cross examine persons was also not afforded to the assessee. 25. The Assessing Officer ... made addition of Rs. 6.35 crores. 26. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it was not provided with the copies of seized materials and also opportunity for cross examination of the persons was also not provided. The assessee further contended that the Assessing Officer could not have

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Shanti Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 751/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2013-14
Section 132(1)Section 133A

opportunity to cross examine persons whose statements have been referred to by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer did not furnish copies of seized materials on which he was placing reliance. Opportunity to cross examine persons was also not afforded to the assessee. 25. The Assessing Officer ... made addition of Rs. 6.35 crores. 26. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it was not provided with the copies of seized materials and also opportunity for cross examination of the persons was also not provided. The assessee further contended that the Assessing Officer could not have

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Realty, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132(1)Section 133A

opportunity to cross examine persons whose statements have been referred to by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer did not furnish copies of seized materials on which he was placing reliance. Opportunity to cross examine persons was also not afforded to the assessee. 25. The Assessing Officer ... made addition of Rs. 6.35 crores. 26. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it was not provided with the copies of seized materials and also opportunity for cross examination of the persons was also not provided. The assessee further contended that the Assessing Officer could not have

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Mega Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 749/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132(1)Section 133A

opportunity to cross examine persons whose statements have been referred to by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer did not furnish copies of seized materials on which he was placing reliance. Opportunity to cross examine persons was also not afforded to the assessee. 25. The Assessing Officer ... made addition of Rs. 6.35 crores. 26. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it was not provided with the copies of seized materials and also opportunity for cross examination of the persons was also not provided. The assessee further contended that the Assessing Officer could not have

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Mega Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 132(1)Section 133A

opportunity to cross examine persons whose statements have been referred to by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer did not furnish copies of seized materials on which he was placing reliance. Opportunity to cross examine persons was also not afforded to the assessee. 25. The Assessing Officer ... made addition of Rs. 6.35 crores. 26. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it was not provided with the copies of seized materials and also opportunity for cross examination of the persons was also not provided. The assessee further contended that the Assessing Officer could not have

DCIT CC-3, Mumbai vs. Nibr Bullion P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6320/MUM/2011[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvkvkla- 6320@Eaqcbz@2011 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 1(3), Mumbai, Room No.905, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Bldg. M.K.Road Mumbai-400 002 Cuke Vs. ..... Izfroknh/Respondent M/S Nibr Bullion Pvt. Ltd. 78-A, Shaikh Memon Street, Mumbai-400 002 Pan No.Aabcn7138C

For Respondent: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms Mitali
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

submits that a perusal of the assessment order would show that the AO made addition of Rs.3,81,80,119/- on the basis of seized material. The learned AR asserted that once the addition has been made by the AO separately under different heads after examining the seized material ... such incriminating material. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that factually the assessee offered the income to the extent the seized material was available and not otherwise. AO’s attempt to make the differential amounts of undisclosed strictly relying on the sworn statement of Mr. Kiran Patil

Venkatesan Ravi, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2388/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2388/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Venkatesan Ravi, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 14A, Balu Nagar, Mogappair East, Income Tax, Chennai 600 037. Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai – 34. [Pan:Adwpr8864L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai Dated 25.06.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Only Ground Raised By The Assessee Before The Tribunal Is That “The Assessing Officer Ought To Have Been Passed Assessment Order Under Section 153C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Not Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act. The Issue Raised

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153C

Supreme court has held that proceedings u/s 153C of the Act can be initiated against a person only if the seized materials "Belonged" to that person. It is not sufficient for the Revenue to urge that the seized document "pertains to the person". Supreme Court, while affirming the judgment

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 592/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

real estate business with Sri Ravipati Nageswara Rao is clearly brought out in the statements recorded on various dates. The transactions in the seized material is owned up by the appellant before the ADIT (Inv.). Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not abstract in this case ... certain that the seized material relates to the appellant’s real estate business. Thus, the appellant’s contention that the material is not belonging to the appellant for the AY 2006-07 is not correct, hence rejected. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the legal ground raised

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 591/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

real estate business with Sri Ravipati Nageswara Rao is clearly brought out in the statements recorded on various dates. The transactions in the seized material is owned up by the appellant before the ADIT (Inv.). Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not abstract in this case ... certain that the seized material relates to the appellant’s real estate business. Thus, the appellant’s contention that the material is not belonging to the appellant for the AY 2006-07 is not correct, hence rejected. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the legal ground raised

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 590/VIZ/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

real estate business with Sri Ravipati Nageswara Rao is clearly brought out in the statements recorded on various dates. The transactions in the seized material is owned up by the appellant before the ADIT (Inv.). Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not abstract in this case ... certain that the seized material relates to the appellant’s real estate business. Thus, the appellant’s contention that the material is not belonging to the appellant for the AY 2006-07 is not correct, hence rejected. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the legal ground raised

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 589/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

real estate business with Sri Ravipati Nageswara Rao is clearly brought out in the statements recorded on various dates. The transactions in the seized material is owned up by the appellant before the ADIT (Inv.). Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not abstract in this case ... certain that the seized material relates to the appellant’s real estate business. Thus, the appellant’s contention that the material is not belonging to the appellant for the AY 2006-07 is not correct, hence rejected. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the legal ground raised

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 588/VIZ/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

real estate business with Sri Ravipati Nageswara Rao is clearly brought out in the statements recorded on various dates. The transactions in the seized material is owned up by the appellant before the ADIT (Inv.). Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not abstract in this case ... certain that the seized material relates to the appellant’s real estate business. Thus, the appellant’s contention that the material is not belonging to the appellant for the AY 2006-07 is not correct, hence rejected. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the legal ground raised

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 587/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

real estate business with Sri Ravipati Nageswara Rao is clearly brought out in the statements recorded on various dates. The transactions in the seized material is owned up by the appellant before the ADIT (Inv.). Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not abstract in this case ... certain that the seized material relates to the appellant’s real estate business. Thus, the appellant’s contention that the material is not belonging to the appellant for the AY 2006-07 is not correct, hence rejected. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the legal ground raised

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 586/VIZ/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

real estate business with Sri Ravipati Nageswara Rao is clearly brought out in the statements recorded on various dates. The transactions in the seized material is owned up by the appellant before the ADIT (Inv.). Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not abstract in this case ... certain that the seized material relates to the appellant’s real estate business. Thus, the appellant’s contention that the material is not belonging to the appellant for the AY 2006-07 is not correct, hence rejected. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the legal ground raised

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 585/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

real estate business with Sri Ravipati Nageswara Rao is clearly brought out in the statements recorded on various dates. The transactions in the seized material is owned up by the appellant before the ADIT (Inv.). Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not abstract in this case ... certain that the seized material relates to the appellant’s real estate business. Thus, the appellant’s contention that the material is not belonging to the appellant for the AY 2006-07 is not correct, hence rejected. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the legal ground raised

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 584/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

real estate business with Sri Ravipati Nageswara Rao is clearly brought out in the statements recorded on various dates. The transactions in the seized material is owned up by the appellant before the ADIT (Inv.). Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not abstract in this case ... certain that the seized material relates to the appellant’s real estate business. Thus, the appellant’s contention that the material is not belonging to the appellant for the AY 2006-07 is not correct, hence rejected. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the legal ground raised

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 583/VIZ/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

real estate business with Sri Ravipati Nageswara Rao is clearly brought out in the statements recorded on various dates. The transactions in the seized material is owned up by the appellant before the ADIT (Inv.). Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not abstract in this case ... certain that the seized material relates to the appellant’s real estate business. Thus, the appellant’s contention that the material is not belonging to the appellant for the AY 2006-07 is not correct, hence rejected. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the legal ground raised

Mekala Kameswara Rao, Sattenapalli vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 582/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.579 To 585/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.586 To 592/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Mekala Kameswara Rao, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vaddavalli (V), Tax, Sattenapalli. Central Circle, Pan: Aqjpm 0582 A Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 276C

real estate business with Sri Ravipati Nageswara Rao is clearly brought out in the statements recorded on various dates. The transactions in the seized material is owned up by the appellant before the ADIT (Inv.). Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not abstract in this case ... certain that the seized material relates to the appellant’s real estate business. Thus, the appellant’s contention that the material is not belonging to the appellant for the AY 2006-07 is not correct, hence rejected. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the legal ground raised