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

        <h1>ITAT upholds CIT(A)'s decision, deems AO's notice under Section 153C illegal. Procedural errors highlighted.</h1> <h3>Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-09, New Delhi Versus M/s Nanu Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Vica-Versa</h3> Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-09, New Delhi Versus M/s Nanu Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Vica-Versa - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the disallowance made by the AO under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.2. Legality of the issuance of notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Disallowance under Section 37:The department's appeal contested the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 38,83,148 made by the AO under Section 37. The assessee had debited these expenses to the profit and loss account. However, the primary issue in the appeal focused on the legality of the notice issued under Section 153C, which indirectly affected the disallowance under Section 37.2. Legality of the Issuance of Notice under Section 153C:The main grievance was the CIT(A)'s decision that the notice issued under Section 153C was bad in law. The facts revealed that a search operation was conducted at the residence of the director of the assessee company, during which cash was seized. The AO issued a notice under Section 153C based on a satisfaction note recorded after the search.Key Points from CIT(A)'s Observations:- Conditions for Section 153C: The CIT(A) emphasized that for Section 153C to apply, the AO must be satisfied that seized assets or documents belong to a person other than the one searched, and this satisfaction must be recorded.- Lack of Satisfaction Note: It was found that no satisfaction note was recorded in the assessment file of the searched person (director), which is a prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 153C.- Ownership of Seized Cash: The ownership of the seized cash was doubtful as it was based on the director's statement, which was later retracted. No corroborative evidence was found in the books of account.- Jurisdiction and Seized Material: The seized material must be handed over to the AO having jurisdiction over the assessee, which was not done in this case. The CIT(A) noted that no documents or books of account belonging to the assessee were seized from the director's residence.- Time Limit for Issuance of Notice: The CIT(A) pointed out that the notice was issued after a significant delay without sufficient time for the assessee to present its case.CIT(A)'s Conclusion:The CIT(A) concluded that the issuance of the notice under Section 153C was illegal and without jurisdiction, leading to the deletion of the disallowance made by the AO under Section 37.ITAT's Decision:The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO did not record the necessary satisfaction before issuing the notice under Section 153C. The ITAT referenced several judgments, including those from the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, which reiterated that recording satisfaction is a sine qua non for initiating proceedings under Section 153C.Relevant Case Laws:- Pr. CIT & Ors. vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2016): The court held that the AO must record satisfaction that the seized assets or documents belong to the assessee before initiating proceedings under Section 153C.- Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2014): The court emphasized that mere mention of 'satisfaction' is not enough; the satisfaction note must display reasons for the conclusion.- Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT & Another (2015): The court ruled that possession of photocopies does not imply ownership, and Section 153C cannot be invoked without establishing that the documents do not belong to the searched person.Conclusion:The ITAT dismissed the department's appeals for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12, and the assessee's cross-appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 was withdrawn. The judgments reaffirmed the requirement of recording satisfaction for invoking Section 153C and highlighted procedural lapses in the AO's actions.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found