Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Surabhi Shelters (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 211 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 158BC: Block assessment-Undisclosed income-Incriminating material-Search-Retracted statement-No evidentiary value-Order of block assessment was quashed and set aside.[S. 132, 132 (4), 158B, 260]

PCIT v. Shivgori Builders (P.) Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 94 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. Believe Constructions (P.) Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 134 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 153D: Assessment-Search and seizure-Approval-Single approval-Without reference to seized material or assessment records, such approval was invalid. [S.153A, 260A]

Ador Ceramic (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 418 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Opportunity of cross-examination-Assessment founded on diaries and statement under section 132(4) of a third party-Cross-examination denied by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal-Violation of natural justice-Matters remanded for fresh adjudication after allowing cross-examination. [S. 132(4), 143(3), 153A, 260A]

Harigovind v. Asst. CIT (2026) 485 ITR 509 / 308 Taxman 188 (Mad)(HC) G. Ravindran (HUF) v. Asst. CIT (2026) 485 ITR 509 / 308 Taxman 188 (Mad)(HC)

S. 153C: Assessment-Search-Other person-Date of initiation of search-Date of handing over seized material-Since initiation of search was subsequent to 1-4-2021, provisions of section 153C would not apply and thus, impugned notice issued under section 153C was to be quashed-Notice invalid. [S.132, 153A, Art. 226]

Vijay Bihari Kandhari v. Asst. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 400 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Assessing Officer of searched party and third party was the same-Time limit of clause (ii) of third proviso to section 153B(1) shall apply which was 12 months from end of financial year in which search took place-Order was quashed. [S. 153B, Art. 226]

Parag Rameshbhai Gathani v. ITO, IT (2026) 308 Taxman 47 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search and seizure-Satisfaction was recorded four years after search and two years after assessment of searched person-Notice was quashed and set aside. [S.132, 153A, Art. 226]

Dy. CIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma (2026) 308 Taxman 75 (SC) Editorial : Dy.CIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma(2024) 159 taxmann.com 179/ 469 ITR 197 (Karn)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search and seizure-Loose sheets-Satisfaction note-A sheet of paper containing typed entries and in loose form, not shown to form part of books of account regularly maintained by assessee-Satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C for each assessment year and where a consolidated satisfaction note had been recorded for different assessment years, it would vitiate entire assessment proceedings-Power to transfer cases-No reasonable opportunity had been provided before transferring case and officer of Bangalore had sent Notice and Assessment order to assessee who was a resident of Delhi, it was in total violation of section 127-Order of High Court affirmed-SLP of revenue dismissed. [S. 127, 132, Art. 136]

P CIT, Central v. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 494 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 153A: Assessment-Search or requisition-No incriminating material-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition was affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S. 132, 260A]

PCIT, Central v. Milan Kavin Parikh (2026) 308 Taxman 355 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 153A: Assessment-Search-Unexplained investments-Indian nationals and residents had foreign bank accounts in HSBC Bank (Suisse) SA Geneva which were not disclosed to Indian tax authorities-Peak addition-The base note on which revenue sought to place reliance was in fact a document available post-search and admittedly was not a document recovered under search action, and moreover, assessment proceedings had also stood completed, hence, base note being a document available post-search could not be considered to be any incriminating document to assess or re-assess assessee’s income. [S. 69, 132, 147, 148, 260A]

Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 201 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 153: Assessment-Reassessment-Limitation-Amalgamation-Order of the High Court did not contain any ‘finding’ or ‘direction’ as contemplated by the provisions of section 153(6)-Order was barred by limitation. [S. 153 (6), Art. 226]