← 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

Ram Mohan Rao Darumagari, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 467/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.467/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Ram Mohan Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Darumagari, Secunderabad Ward-15(1) Pan:Agapd7084P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.466/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Late Vanaja Darumagari Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Shri Ram Mohan Rao Ward-15(1) Darumagari, Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Akqpd6499Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Arun Lal, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Appeals By The Husband & Wife Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Dated 10/01/2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad For The A.Y.2008-09. The Issues

For Appellant: Shri Arun Lal, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 148Section 69

concluded as under: i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed even, in case of unabated/completed assessments

Late Vanaja Darumagari L/R Ram Mohan Rao Darumagari, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 466/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.467/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Ram Mohan Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Darumagari, Secunderabad Ward-15(1) Pan:Agapd7084P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.466/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Late Vanaja Darumagari Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Shri Ram Mohan Rao Ward-15(1) Darumagari, Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Akqpd6499Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Arun Lal, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Appeals By The Husband & Wife Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Dated 10/01/2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad For The A.Y.2008-09. The Issues

For Appellant: Shri Arun Lal, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 148Section 69

concluded as under: i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed even, in case of unabated/completed assessments

M/S. Sbs Agencies, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1894/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S.Sbs Agencies, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.18, Audiappa Naicken Street, Tax Sowcarpet, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-600 079. Chennai [Pan: Aalfs9107M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anita, Add.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Add.CIT
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

holding that the materials collected during the survey under Section 133A cannot be taken into consideration while determining the undisclosed income in respect of block assessment as per section 158BB, as the same has no evidentiary value. 5.6. Again, when an identical question whether the material found in the course ... survey in the premises of the builder could be used in the block assessment of the assessee, came up for consideration before this Division Bench in an unreported case in T.C.(A) No.2620 of 2006, this Court, by order dated 22.11.2006, of course, following the earlier decision of this Court

Sebco Property Private Limited, Trichy vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1471/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1428/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1429/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1430/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1431/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1432/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit M/S Sebco Property Private Limited बनाम/ Central Circle-2, 24D, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Vs. Trichy. K.K. Nagar, Trichy-620 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-0810-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1467/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1468/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) &

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

same to be contextually different. In that decision, the Hon’ble Court primarily held that the provisions of Sec. 40A(3) would apply to block assessment proceedings under Chapter XIV-B also. The same is not the case here and this case law has no application. Finally, we upheld

Sebco Property Private Limited, Trichy vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1470/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1428/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1429/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1430/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1431/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1432/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit M/S Sebco Property Private Limited बनाम/ Central Circle-2, 24D, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Vs. Trichy. K.K. Nagar, Trichy-620 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-0810-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1467/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1468/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) &

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

same to be contextually different. In that decision, the Hon’ble Court primarily held that the provisions of Sec. 40A(3) would apply to block assessment proceedings under Chapter XIV-B also. The same is not the case here and this case law has no application. Finally, we upheld

Sebco Property Private Limited, Trichy vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1469/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1428/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1429/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1430/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1431/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1432/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit M/S Sebco Property Private Limited बनाम/ Central Circle-2, 24D, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Vs. Trichy. K.K. Nagar, Trichy-620 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-0810-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1467/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1468/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) &

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

same to be contextually different. In that decision, the Hon’ble Court primarily held that the provisions of Sec. 40A(3) would apply to block assessment proceedings under Chapter XIV-B also. The same is not the case here and this case law has no application. Finally, we upheld