BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

12 results for “house property”+ Search & Seizureclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi711Mumbai538Hyderabad250Bangalore207Jaipur201Chennai97Chandigarh89Cochin68Pune60Indore51Ahmedabad49Kolkata46Rajkot37Amritsar32Nagpur32Guwahati24Patna23Lucknow18Visakhapatnam17Raipur16Jodhpur14SC12Agra10Cuttack9Varanasi9Dehradun8Surat5Allahabad4

Key Topics

Section 13215Section 69A5Penalty4Section 1543Section 2203Addition to Income3Search & Seizure3Section 158B2Section 1122Section 293

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

C.A. No.-004081-004081 - 2022Supreme Court13 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

property or person, to prevent violation of privacy of a citizen……………. But the Court could examine whether the reasons for the belief have a rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and search warrant could not be issued merely with a view to making a roving or fishing enquiry. The expression ‘reason to believe’ has been

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX vs. PARMESHWARI DEVI SULTANIA

C.A. No.-000142-000142 - 1997Supreme Court06 Mar 1998
2
Revision u/s 2632
Limitation/Time-bar2
For Respondent: PARMESHWARI DEVI SULTANIA & ORS
Section 132Section 293Section 80

house of the first defendant on March 23, 1990 and seized those gold ornaments which weighed 2128 gms. along with other assets. Plaintiff said that she filed a petition before the Income Tax Officer for return of the ornaments but he refused. The plaintiff then issued a notice to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa, defendant No.7

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-003738-003739 - 2023Supreme Court16 May 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 260A

seizure. This should be reported to the Director of Income- tax/Commissioner authorising the search at the time of furnishing the search report. In all cases, a detailed inventory of the jewellery and ornaments found must be prepared to be used for assessment purposes.” K. R. B. JODHA MAL DISTINGUISHED BY HIGH COURT 50. The High Court has distinguished the judgment

M/S. K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.)

The appeal is dismissed subject to the aforesaid

C.A. No.-000769-000769 - 2008Supreme Court29 Jan 2008
For Respondent: Director of Income Tax (Inv.) and Ors
Section 132Section 132(3)

Seizure Manual\024 to which reference has been made deals with in Chapter V under heading \023Post Search Work\024. The relevant paras 5.01 and 5.02 read as follows: \0235.01 After the return of the search parties, a check list should be prepared for pending and immediate follow up work. The check list may inter alia include:- (a) List

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

C.A. No.-008750-008750 - 2014Supreme Court15 Sept 2014
Section 113Section 132Section 154Section 158B

seizure took place on 06.10.2001. An order of block assessment in terms of Section 158BC was made in respect of the assessment years 1984 to 2003. The surcharge was levied on 30.06.2003. In support of its contention that the said proviso was retrospective in nature, the learned Additional Solicitor General relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court

M/S. MERCANTILE COMPANY vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA

C.A. No.-001854-001855 - 2001Supreme Court11 Oct 2007
For Respondent: Commnr. of Central Excise, Calcutta
Section 11ASection 35L

seizure of 3 files, 9700 pieces of Philips Ultra cleaner, 500 pieces of degreasing & cleansing fluid, 700 pieces of Switch cleaning oil all bearing brand name of Philips. These were detained and later seized on 9th February, 1998. Also, some 13 files belonging to M/s. T. Paul & Sons were tendered by the partner of the appellant firm. Certain other documents

GUNWANTLAL GODAWAT vs. UNION OF INDIA CUSTOM AND CENTRAL EXCISE THROUGH COMMISSIONER

The appeals are disposed of as indicated above

C.A. No.-004711-004712 - 2011Supreme Court22 Nov 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR

Section 126M

house of Late Shri Chhaganlal   Godawat,   under   the   Rule   126­M   of   the   erstwhile Defence of India Rules, 1962.   The impugned gold along with the Iron Safe will, however, be released and handed over to the legal heirs of Late Shri Chhaganlal Godawat on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2.50 crores (Rupees Two crores fifty lacs only) in lieu

KOTHARI FILAMENTS vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS (PORT) KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions with costs

C.A. No.-007307-007307 - 2008Supreme Court16 Dec 2008
Section 111Section 112Section 124

search and seizure was carried out and on examination, it was found that 189 poly bags out of 860 poly bags contained a white coloured chemical and the remaining 671 poly bags contained a yellow coloured chemical. The estimated value of the mis-declared item was estimated at Rs.1,02,97,166/-. 4. A notice under Section

B.M.MALANI vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed accordingly to the aforementioned extent

C.A. No.-005950-005950 - 2008Supreme Court01 Oct 2008
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 220Section 245C

seizure to meet the tax liabilities and oblige.” 2 Indisputably, the said request of the appellant was not acceded to. However, the fact that such an offer had been made by the appellant is not denied or disputed. It is furthermore not disputed that the Income Tax Department demanded and recovered a sum of Rs.40 lakhs in between the period

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

C.A. No.-007689-007690 - 2022Supreme Court24 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 104Section 112Section 135Section 271Section 69A

search at the business premises of the Respondent/assessee. The recovery yielded silver slabs/silver ingots. The assessee was in the business of making jewellery. 5. The Respondent/assessee filed his return for the Assessment Year 1989-1990 followed by a petition before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The Collector of Customs vide order dated 18.12.1990 ordered confiscation of goods and imposed penalty

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

C.A. No.-004475-004475 - 2025Supreme Court28 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

House, Kandla) Cross Examination of Shri Gobind Singh, Manager (Lab), IOCL, Central Laboratory, Mumbai in the matter of SCN F. No. DRI/AZU/CI/ENQ-11(INT-2/2018 dated 24.04.2019 issued to M/s. Gastrade International & Others by Shri Hardik Modh, Advocate. Q: What is your name·? A: Dr. Gobind Singh. Q: Where have you been working and for how long? A: I have

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA vs. G.C. JAIN

Appeals are dismissed but without any

C.A. No.-006334-006335 - 2003Supreme Court04 Jul 2011

searches were conducted in the offices of the Respondents and their statements were recorded. The customs clearing agent was also interrogated and efforts were made to find out as to whether the product in question was used as a bonding agent or not. Shri R.K. Jain, in his statement, recorded during such investigations, deposed that the product was used