← All Phrases

“block assessment”

Search & SeizureSection 158BCSection 158BC4,282 judgments

The decision most relied on for block assessment is CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (380 ITR 612), cited in 689 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on block assessment

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court
689
citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
346 ITR 177 · 2012 · High Court
308
citing judgments

For a non-searched person under Section 153C, the relevant six assessment years are counted backward from the assessment year in which the search was conducted, as prescribed by the first proviso to Section 153C(1).

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).

Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT
289 ITR 341 · 2007 · Supreme Court
237
citing judgments

A block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act requires a prior search conducted under Section 132 or a requisition of documents/assets under Section 132A. This fundamental condition precedent applies to block assessments, including those concerning other persons under Section 158BD.

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.

Rishabchand Bhansali v. Dy. CIT
267 ITR 577 · 2004 · High Court
202
citing judgments

The previous approval required for assessment orders under provisions like Section 158BG or Section 153D is an administrative power and an internal matter, not deciding the assessee's rights. A mere irregularity in granting such administrative approval does not vitiate the assessment order.

P.R. Metrani v. CIT
287 ITR 209 · 2006 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

Section 132 of the Income Tax Act is a self-contained code governing search and seizure operations. The books of accounts, documents, valuables, or statements recorded during a search can be used as evidence in any subsequent proceedings under the Act, and the section outlines the conditions for issuing warrants of authorization.

CIT (Central) v. Kabul Chawla
2015 SCC OnLine DEL 11555 · 2015 · Reported
186
citing judgments

No addition can be made in respect of a completed assessment in the absence of incriminating material, especially when considering the object and purpose of Section 153-A.

Judgments citing block assessment

Preety Arora, Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC), Mumbai

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

ITA 1515/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalpreety Arora Vs. Adit (Cpc) 96, Shanghrila Shahid Karnataka Bhagatsingh Road Colaba 560100 Maharashtra – 400005 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadpa3141M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Pooja Hasrajani Respondent By : Mr. R.A. Dhyani Date Of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Ms.Pooja HasrajaniFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Supreme Court noted though provision for surcharge under the Finance Acts have been in existence since 1995, the charge of surcharge with respect to block assessment years, having been created for the first time by the insertion of proviso to Section 113 of the Act, by Finance ... stated to be clarificatory in nature. Likewise, it is mentioned that amendments in Section 145 whereby provisions of that section are made applicable to block assessments is made clarificatory and would take effect retrospectively from 1st day of July, 1995. When it comes to amendment to Section

M/S. Murugan'S, Chennai vs. ACIT, Pondicherry

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A

ITA 2100/CHNY/2016[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2022AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T(Ss)A Nos.11/Chny/2016 & Ita No.2099/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Block Assessment Years:1996-97 & 1997-98 (Part) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2100/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1997-98 M/S. Murugan’S, The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. 263-265, J.N. Street, Tax, Pondicherry – 605 001. Central Circle-I(2), [Pan: Aadfm 3549H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate '(थ& की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry, Dated 31.12.2015. There Is A Delay Of 111 Days In Filing The Above Appeals, For 2. Which, The Assessee Filed Affidavits/Petitions In Three Appeals For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein He Has Stated As Under:

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A for Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 132

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक

M/S. Murugan'S, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A

ITA 2099/CHNY/2016[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2022AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T(Ss)A Nos.11/Chny/2016 & Ita No.2099/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Block Assessment Years:1996-97 & 1997-98 (Part) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2100/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1997-98 M/S. Murugan’S, The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. 263-265, J.N. Street, Tax, Pondicherry – 605 001. Central Circle-I(2), [Pan: Aadfm 3549H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate '(थ& की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry, Dated 31.12.2015. There Is A Delay Of 111 Days In Filing The Above Appeals, For 2. Which, The Assessee Filed Affidavits/Petitions In Three Appeals For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein He Has Stated As Under:

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A for Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 132

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक