Section 153A of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 153A is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 of the 18,957 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 153A

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.
374 ITR 645 · 2015 · High Court
1,823
citing judgments

In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
193 ITR 321 · 1992 · Supreme Court
1,695
citing judgments

The principle of consistency applies in tax matters, meaning a fundamental aspect found to be true in one assessment year should not be changed in a subsequent year if the order was not challenged.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

Judgments on Section 153A

Vinod K Faria, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) -II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 3798/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3798/Mum/2013 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3799/Mum/2013 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3800/Mum/2013 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3801/Mum/2013 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1475/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 6. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1476/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 7. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1477/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Shri Vinod K. Faria Dcit (Osd-Ii), Central Range-7 बिाम/ Flat No. 3, Fairy Manor, 13, Room No. 413, Aayakar Bhavan, Gunbow Street, Fort Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 706 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaapf-1045-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Hiral Sejpal- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri H. N. Singh– Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hiral Sejpal- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh– Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69ASection 69C

ACIT Central Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Sasikala Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 582/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.582/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 & C.O. Nos. 53 & 59/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No. 582/Chny/2019] The Assistant Commissioner Of Ms. Sasikala Raghupathy, Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1), Vs. New No. 60, Old No. 100, Iv Street, Chennai. Abhiramapuram, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aafpr5481B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri S. Bharath, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms.T. Sandhyaarti, C.A. : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 26.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Delayed By 24 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Department Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal In The Form Of An Affidavit. We Have Gone Through The Affidavit & Find That The Department Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For The Delay In 2

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F