← 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

ITO, Chennai vs. Rakesh Sarin, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3049/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3048, 3049, 3050, 3051 & 3052/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Rakesh Sarin, Corporate Ward 1(1), Vs. No. 5E, Mookambigai Complex, Chennai 600 034. Lady Desika Road, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Adxpr7428R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Ramakrishnan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Relating Same Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai Dated 26.06.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue That The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Appreciating The Evidences With Respect To Loan Given To M/S. Quest Films Of ₹.1,60,00,000/- Even Though A Letter Was Found Addressed To The Assessee For The Delay In Payment Of Interest Received By It.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramakrishnan, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate

assessee has submitted that since the quantum addition of loan amount of ₹.1,60,00,000/- has been deleted by the Tribunal in block assessment, the consequential interest estimated on the addition is untenable. Moreover, it was the submission that the tax effect in the appeal filed by the Revenue ... have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Under para 13 of the block assessment order, the Assessing Officer made addition in the hands of the assessee towards the amount advanced to Quest Films to the extent

ITO, Chennai vs. Rakesh Sarin, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3048/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3048, 3049, 3050, 3051 & 3052/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Rakesh Sarin, Corporate Ward 1(1), Vs. No. 5E, Mookambigai Complex, Chennai 600 034. Lady Desika Road, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Adxpr7428R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Ramakrishnan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Relating Same Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai Dated 26.06.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue That The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Appreciating The Evidences With Respect To Loan Given To M/S. Quest Films Of ₹.1,60,00,000/- Even Though A Letter Was Found Addressed To The Assessee For The Delay In Payment Of Interest Received By It.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramakrishnan, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate

assessee has submitted that since the quantum addition of loan amount of ₹.1,60,00,000/- has been deleted by the Tribunal in block assessment, the consequential interest estimated on the addition is untenable. Moreover, it was the submission that the tax effect in the appeal filed by the Revenue ... have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Under para 13 of the block assessment order, the Assessing Officer made addition in the hands of the assessee towards the amount advanced to Quest Films to the extent

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7413/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7413 /Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) बनधम/ Shri Mohan Thakur Acit, Central Circle-8(4) 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, 4, Flora Vila, 35, St. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai- Andrews Road, Bandra 400020. (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaapt2966N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Durga Dutt/ Akhtar H. Ansari (Dr) Assessee By: Dr. K. Shivaram सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Validity Of Notice U/S 148 Where The Proceedings U/S 153C Had Already Been Initiated Which Were Dropped & Immediately The Reassessment Proceedings Had Been Initiated Without Any Fresh Material On Record & Hence Reopening Is Void- Ab - Initio Merit : Addition Of Rs.237.00.000/- Based On Entries In Diary Of Third Person: 2. No Addition Can Be Made Based On Entries Found In The Books In Third Party'S Premises Since No Search U/S 132 Had Taken Place On The Assessee & Hence S.132(4A) Would Not Be Applicable To The Present Facts Of The Case. In View Of The Same The Entire Addition May Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt/ Akhtar H
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153C

Taxman 258 wherein it has been held that if the procedure laid down in s. 158BD is not followed, block assessment proceedings would be illegal. The CIT(A) has correctly observed that the provisions of s. 153C are exactly similar to the provisions of s. 158BD ... block assessment proceedings. Thus, considering the entire facts and the circumstances of the present case, we hold that the CIT(A) was fully justified in quashing the reassessment order. We also do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative that during the course of search

Shri Aeshwarya Jain, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1129/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1129/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke Shri Aeshwarya Jain The Dcit Vs. 65, Shopping Centre Central Circle Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Abjpj 3114 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms.Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28-06-2019 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Arising From Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 271Aab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Which Is Void Ab Inito Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Chanchal Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is parimateria with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty