← 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

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

authorities. 2) CIT vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd – Del HC-288 ITR 345 (Annexure 7) " Search and seizure-Block assessment-Computation of undisclosed income-Block assessment completed under s. 158BD against the assessee on the basis of documents discovered in the premises of one M and the statements made

Shri Padam Chand Pungliya, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Apr 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT)
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 271ASection 274

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

M/S Aggarwal Sales, Zirakpur vs. DCIT, CC, Patiala

ITA 1443/CHANDI/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: The High Court Of Bombay In The Case Of Cit Vs. M/S Murli Agro Products Ltd. (Supra), Wherein On The Issue Of Exercise Of Revisionary Powers By The Commissioner Of Income Tax U/S 263 Of The Act, On The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 153A, It Was Contended By The Revenue That The Impugned Order Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue Since The Assessing Officer Had Only Determined The Undisclosed Income & Not The Total Income Which Is The Mandate Of Section 153A .The Hon'Ble High Court, While Adjudicating The Issue, Dealt At Length With The Purpose Of Introduction Of The New Search Assessment Procedures, As Against The Earlier Block Assessment Procedures & Then Went On To Interpret The Proviso To Section 153A(1) & Held That It Is Only Pending Proceedings Which Are Abated On Initiation Of Proceedings Under Section 153A Of The Act, While The Assessments Which Have Attained Finality Cannot Be Disturbed Unless Materials Gathered In The Course Of Proceedings Under Section 153A Of The Act Established Otherwise.

Section 143(1)(a)Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 263

High Court, while adjudicating the issue, dealt at length with the purpose of introduction of the new search assessment procedures, as against the earlier block assessment procedures and then went on to interpret the proviso to section 153A(1) , and held that it is only pending proceedings which are abated ... Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493, interpreted the provisions of section 153A of the Act at length, and held that as against the earlier block assessment procedure which roped in only the undisclosed income and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved, resulting in multiple assessments, under the present assessment procedures

M/S Aggarwal Sales, Zirakpur vs. DCIT, CC, Patiala

ITA 1442/CHANDI/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: The High Court Of Bombay In The Case Of Cit Vs. M/S Murli Agro Products Ltd. (Supra), Wherein On The Issue Of Exercise Of Revisionary Powers By The Commissioner Of Income Tax U/S 263 Of The Act, On The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 153A, It Was Contended By The Revenue That The Impugned Order Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue Since The Assessing Officer Had Only Determined The Undisclosed Income & Not The Total Income Which Is The Mandate Of Section 153A .The Hon'Ble High Court, While Adjudicating The Issue, Dealt At Length With The Purpose Of Introduction Of The New Search Assessment Procedures, As Against The Earlier Block Assessment Procedures & Then Went On To Interpret The Proviso To Section 153A(1) & Held That It Is Only Pending Proceedings Which Are Abated On Initiation Of Proceedings Under Section 153A Of The Act, While The Assessments Which Have Attained Finality Cannot Be Disturbed Unless Materials Gathered In The Course Of Proceedings Under Section 153A Of The Act Established Otherwise.

Section 143(1)(a)Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 263

High Court, while adjudicating the issue, dealt at length with the purpose of introduction of the new search assessment procedures, as against the earlier block assessment procedures and then went on to interpret the proviso to section 153A(1) , and held that it is only pending proceedings which are abated ... Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493, interpreted the provisions of section 153A of the Act at length, and held that as against the earlier block assessment procedure which roped in only the undisclosed income and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved, resulting in multiple assessments, under the present assessment procedures

Shambhu Kumar Agarwal, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota

In the result, we confirm the levy of penalty @ 10% on the undisclosed income of Rs

ITA 1381/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 251(2)Section 271A

parimateria with 21 Sh. Shambhu Kumar Agarwal, Kota vs. DCIT, Kota 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 is not exigible

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1205/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1188/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh

M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1053/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh

Shri Krishna Yadav, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shi B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

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 ... 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

Smt. Aparna Agrawal, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue

ITA 1379/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 251(2)Section 271A

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

Mrs. Reena Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

name of the assessee, they were covered u/s 153A of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee received notice u/s 153A of the Act and the block assessment was opened from AY 2009-10 to AY 2015-16. Further the Ld. counsel submits that the issue dealt with

Mr.Ratnesh Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

name of the assessee, they were covered u/s 153A of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee received notice u/s 153A of the Act and the block assessment was opened from AY 2009-10 to AY 2015-16. Further the Ld. counsel submits that the issue dealt with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Shri Vasudev Agrawal, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1434/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the Assessee during search operation. 21. A plain reading of Section 132 (4) of the Act indicates that ... once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Shri Rajendra Agrawal, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1432/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the Assessee during search operation. 21. A plain reading of Section 132 (4) of the Act indicates that ... once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Smt. Jyoti Agarwal, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1430/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

standalone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the Assessee during search operation. 15 DCIT Vs Jyoti Agarwal 21. A plain reading of Section ... once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which

Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1384/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271A

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 ... 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

Shri Ajay Agarwal, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1383/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

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 ... 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

Smt. Aparna Agrawal, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1378/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

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 ... 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

Shri Vasudev Agrawal, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1376/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

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 ... 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 Shri Vasudev Agrawal, Kota. discretionary. When there is reasonable cause

Shri Rajendra Agrawal, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1375/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

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 ... 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