Home › › Page 3

Search Results For: 153C

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 28, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 1, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04 to 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 153C: Whenever a document is found from a person who is being searched the normal presumption is that the said document belongs to that person. It is for the AO to rebut that presumption and come to a conclusion or "satisfaction" that the document in fact belongs to somebody else based on cogent material

On a plain reading of Section 153C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be “satisfied” that inter alia any document seized or requisitioned “belongs to” a person other than the searched person. It is …

DCIT vs. Aakash Arogya Mindir P.Ltd (ITAT Delhi) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 14, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 1, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07 to 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 153C cannot be invoked unless the AO is satisfied for cogent reasons that the seized documents do not belong to the searched person. Finding of photocopies with the searched person does not mean they "belong" to the person holding the originals. The distinction between "belongs to" and "relates to" or "refers to" must be borne in mind by the AO

(i) First of all, it is nobody’s case that the Jaipuria Group had disclaimed these documents as belonging to them. Unless and until it is established that the documents do not belong to the searched person, the provisions of Section …

Pepsi India Holdings Private Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 28, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 29, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02 & 2002- 03
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
As per proviso to s. 153C, the date of receiving books of account or documents shall be considered the date of search. Therefore, under proviso to s. 153C and s. 153A(1)(b), in the case of person in whose case action is required u/s 153C, the AO is empowered to take action u/s 153C for the year in which the seized document is received by him and the preceding six years

As per Section 153A(1)(b), the Assessing Officer is empowered to assess or reassess the total income of the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the assessment year in which search is conducted. Thus, in other words, …

R. L. Allied Industries vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 3 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 14, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 18, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04 to 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 153A/ 153C: Entire law on recording of satisfaction by the AO and limitation period explained

(i) It must not be lost sight of that s. 153C of the Act and 158BD of the Act are draconian in nature when accounts of the person or entity other than the person searched are reopened automatically and revenue …

ACIT vs. Inlay Marketing Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) Read More »

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 3, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 12, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-2002 to 2007-2008
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Admission of undisclosed income by assessee constitutes good evidence. Loose sheets found during search can be relied upon

(i) With regard to the undisclosed income of Rs.52,73,920/- supported by printouts, in the sworn statement dated 29.8.2006, the assessee says that he had separate business income which was not included in his income tax returns. Therefore, admission of undisclosed …

B. Kishore Kumar vs. DCIT (Madras High Court) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 3 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 8, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 153C: Date of receiving seized documents is the "date of initiation of search" and six years period has to be reckoned from that date. An assessment order passed u/s 143(3) instead of u/s 153C is void

A search in the case of Koutons took place on 19.02.2009 (AY 2009-10). The documents belonging to the assessee which were found during the search were handed over to the AO having jurisdiction over the assessee on 16.06.2009 (AY 2010-11). …

Jasjit Singh vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Read More »

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 24, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 5, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
An assessment u/s 153A & 153C cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found in search

It has been held by the ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of LMJ International Limited vs DCIT 119 TTJ (Kol) 214 where nothing incriminating is found in the course of search relating to any assessment years, the assessments for …

Trishul Hi-Tech Industries vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Read More »