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

        ITAT Upholds CIT(A) Decision on Section 153A Assessment, Emphasizing Need for Incriminating Material (A)

        ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus PACL INDIA LTD

        ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus PACL INDIA LTD - TMI Issues Involved:

        1. Quashing of assessment made under Section 153A.
        2. Interpretation of Section 153A of the IT Act.
        3. Reliance on second proviso to Section 153A(1).
        4. Non-following of Circular No. 7 of 2003 by the CIT(A).
        5. Precondition for documents under Section 153C/153A.
        6. Validity of the CIT(A)'s order.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Quashing of Assessment Made Under Section 153A:
        The CIT(A) quashed the assessment made under Section 153A by holding that no document was seized during the search pertaining to the Assessment Year in question. The CIT(A) reasoned that during the search, no evidence was found indicating undisclosed income by the appellant. Additionally, it was noted that the original return of income was filed on 02.12.2003 and processed under Section 143(1)(a), with no assessment pending on the day of the search. Therefore, the completed assessment should not abate.

        2. Interpretation of Section 153A of the IT Act:
        The CIT(A) interpreted Section 153A to mean that the assessment or reassessment should be based on incriminating material found during the search. The CIT(A) relied on several judicial precedents, including ITAT Jodhpur Bench in Suncity Alloys (P) Ltd. v. ACIT, ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in Meghmani Organics Ltd. v. DCIT, and others, which supported the view that no addition can be made if no incriminating material is found during the search.

        3. Reliance on Second Proviso to Section 153A(1):
        The CIT(A) placed reliance on the second proviso to Section 153A(1), which states that if no assessment is pending on the date of the search, the completed assessment shall not abate. This interpretation was supported by various case laws cited by the CIT(A), which emphasized that the scope of assessment under Section 153A is limited to the incriminating material found during the search.

        4. Non-following of Circular No. 7 of 2003 by the CIT(A):
        The revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in not following Circular No. 7 of 2003 issued by the CBDT. However, the CIT(A) and judicial precedents cited in the judgment indicated that the circular does not override the statutory provisions and judicial interpretations that restrict the scope of assessment under Section 153A to incriminating material found during the search.

        5. Precondition for Documents Under Section 153C/153A:
        The revenue contended that there is no precondition that documents pertaining to each assessment year must be found for proceedings under Section 153C/153A. However, the CIT(A) and supporting case laws clarified that additions under these sections must be based on incriminating material found during the search. In the absence of such material, the assessments or reassessments cannot be justified.

        6. Validity of the CIT(A)'s Order:
        The CIT(A)'s order was challenged as being perverse and not tenable in law and on facts. However, the detailed analysis of judicial precedents and the facts of the case supported the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) concluded that no incriminating material was found during the search to justify the addition of Rs. 90,19,000/- out of the land development expenses.

        Conclusion:
        The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment made under Section 153A, emphasizing that no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal reiterated that the scope of assessment under Section 153A is limited to the incriminating material found during the search, and in the absence of such material, no addition can be made. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found