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

Binnaifer Kohli, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 25, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4334/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष Smt.Binnaifer Kohli, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 1101-1106, Occean View Bldg., Tax, Cc-25, फनधभ/ Deccan Chs, Union Park, Mumbai. Vs. Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Smt.Binnaifer Kohli, Asstt. Commissioner Of 1101-1106, Occean View Bldg., Income Tax, Cc-25, फनधभ/ Deccan Chs, Union Park, Mumbai. Vs. Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Abwpn5134E (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से /Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi Ms.Keyuri Desai प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Revenue By : Shri N P Singh सुनवधई की तधयीख /Date Of Hearing : 7.2.2017 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of : 24. 2.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: The Appeal Bearing Ita No.3832/Mum/2012 Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.2.2012 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), 39, Mumbai & The Appeal Bearing Ita No.4334/Mum/2014 Is Also Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 3.3.2014 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) Against The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)( C ) Of The Act. Both The Appeals Pertain To The Assessment Year 2004-05. Since These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Consolidated Order, For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. The Issue Raised In The First Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.23,78,000/- As Made By The Ao Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In The Assessment Framed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 153A Of The Act Even Though There Was No Incriminating Material Or Evidence For Doubting The Genuineness Of The Gift Found Or Seized During The Course Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N P Singh
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 68

Binnaifer Kohli, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 25, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3832/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष Smt.Binnaifer Kohli, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 1101-1106, Occean View Bldg., Tax, Cc-25, फनधभ/ Deccan Chs, Union Park, Mumbai. Vs. Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Smt.Binnaifer Kohli, Asstt. Commissioner Of 1101-1106, Occean View Bldg., Income Tax, Cc-25, फनधभ/ Deccan Chs, Union Park, Mumbai. Vs. Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Abwpn5134E (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से /Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi Ms.Keyuri Desai प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Revenue By : Shri N P Singh सुनवधई की तधयीख /Date Of Hearing : 7.2.2017 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of : 24. 2.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: The Appeal Bearing Ita No.3832/Mum/2012 Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.2.2012 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), 39, Mumbai & The Appeal Bearing Ita No.4334/Mum/2014 Is Also Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 3.3.2014 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) Against The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)( C ) Of The Act. Both The Appeals Pertain To The Assessment Year 2004-05. Since These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Consolidated Order, For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. The Issue Raised In The First Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.23,78,000/- As Made By The Ao Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In The Assessment Framed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 153A Of The Act Even Though There Was No Incriminating Material Or Evidence For Doubting The Genuineness Of The Gift Found Or Seized During The Course Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N P Singh
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 68

Rajesh Poddar, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 7(4), Mumbai

ITA 2114/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No.2114/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण व आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण व िनधा"रण वष"ष"ष"ष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण व Mr. Rajesh Poddar Dcit, Central Circle-7(4) 42, Gautam Apartment Room No.659, 6Th Floor 31, Juhu Road, Santacruz (W) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 054. Mumbai-400 020. Pan: Aafpp 3092 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri R.P. Meena-Dr Assessee By: Shri Devendra H. Jain सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08.02.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:22.02.2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य,राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार -Per Rajendra,Am: राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 29.01.2016 Of Cit(A)-48, Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Devendra H. JainFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena-DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(a)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 69C