Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Invalid Notice under Section 153C Annuls Assessments for Multiple Years; Tribunal Emphasizes Recording Satisfaction

        P. Sathyanarayanan Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Central Circle-I (3). Chennai

        P. Sathyanarayanan Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Central Circle-I (3). Chennai - [2012] 50 SOT 168 Issues Involved:
        1. Assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
        2. Validity of the notice issued under section 153C read with section 153A.
        3. Additions on account of inadequacy of drawings.
        4. Additions based on differences between Balance Sheets found during the search and those filed with returns.
        5. Agricultural income claims.
        6. Validity of returns filed beyond the specified time.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 153C:
        The cross objections filed by the assessee challenged the jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the satisfaction for initiating proceedings under section 153C was not recorded, making the notice invalid. The Revenue countered that the note sheets indicated the Assessing Officer's satisfaction. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's notes explicitly stated that recording reasons was not a pre-condition for action under section 153C, which contradicted the requirement established by the Supreme Court in Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT. Consequently, the Tribunal held the notice issued under section 153C read with section 153A as invalid, annulling the assessments for the years 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2004-05.

        2. Validity of the Notice Issued under Section 153C Read with Section 153A:
        The Tribunal emphasized that the recording of satisfaction is crucial for initiating proceedings under section 153C. In the absence of such satisfaction in both the searched person's case and the assessee's case, the notice was deemed invalid. This principle is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Manish Maheshwari.

        3. Additions on Account of Inadequacy of Drawings:
        The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made for inadequate drawings. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing a co-ordinate Bench's decision in the case of Smt. P. Easwari, which stated that the aggregate drawings of all family members should be considered. Given the assessee's joint family status, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions.

        4. Additions Based on Differences Between Balance Sheets:
        The Revenue argued that the Balance Sheets found during the search should be presumed accurate under section 132(4A) read with section 292C. The Tribunal agreed that the Balance Sheets found during the search are presumed true but noted that the return filed by the assessee in response to the notice was invalid due to late filing. Consequently, the comparison between the Balance Sheets found during the search and those filed with the returns was not valid for making additions. The Tribunal deleted the additions based on this comparison.

        5. Agricultural Income Claims:
        The issue of agricultural income was relevant only for the assessment years 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2004-05. Since the Tribunal annulled the assessments for these years, this issue did not require further adjudication.

        6. Validity of Returns Filed Beyond the Specified Time:
        The Tribunal held that the return filed beyond the specified time in the notice under section 153C read with section 153A is invalid. The Assessing Officer does not have the authority to condone the delay in filing such returns. Therefore, any additions based on comparisons with these invalid returns were deleted. However, the income returned by the assessee for these years was confirmed under the proviso to section 240 of the Act.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal dismissed the cross objections filed by the assessee due to limitation. The appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2004-05 were allowed, annulling the assessments for these years. The Revenue's appeals for these years were dismissed as infructuous. For the assessment years 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2005-06, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, confirming the income returned by the assessee but deleting other additions based on invalid returns.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found