Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2020 (2) TMI 1044 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        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

        Tribunal nullifies assessment orders for exceeding time limit, citing jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal upheld the decision to quash the assessment orders for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 as null and void due to jurisdictional issues and exceeding ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Tribunal nullifies assessment orders for exceeding time limit, citing jurisdictional issues.

                          The Tribunal upheld the decision to quash the assessment orders for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 as null and void due to jurisdictional issues and exceeding the six-year limitation period under Section 153C. The reliance on the Delhi High Court's judgment in CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. was crucial in determining the time frame for assessments. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, affirming the annulment of the assessments.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 153C.
                          2. Validity of the assessment orders for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 under Section 153C.
                          3. Applicability of the six-year limitation period for assessment under Section 153C.
                          4. Reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 153C:
                          The core issue was whether the AO had jurisdiction to make assessments under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The AO issued notices under Section 153C based on documents found during a search at the premises of other entities. The assessee contended that the AO lacked jurisdiction as no relevant material belonging to the assessee was found during the search. The Ld. CIT(A) quashed the proceedings under Section 153C, holding that the AO of the searched person must be satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the one searched, and this satisfaction must be recorded.

                          2. Validity of the Assessment Orders for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 under Section 153C:
                          The assessments for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 were challenged on the grounds that they were beyond the permissible period of six years from the end of the financial year in which the seized material was handed over to the AO of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the relevant assessment years for initiating proceedings under Section 153C should be from AY 2010-11 to 2015-16, as the satisfaction was recorded on 23.02.2016. Consequently, the assessments for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 were annulled as they were outside the scope of Section 153C.

                          3. Applicability of the Six-Year Limitation Period for Assessment under Section 153C:
                          The Ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal both referenced the judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd., which clarified that the six-year period for assessments under Section 153C should be reckoned from the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person. This interpretation was upheld, and it was determined that the six-year period in this case would cover AYs 2010-11 to 2015-16, thereby excluding AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10.

                          4. Reliance on the Judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd.:
                          The judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. was pivotal in this case. It was cited to support the interpretation that the six-year period for assessments under Section 153C should be calculated from the date of satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched person. This judgment was consistently followed by the ITAT in similar cases, including M/s BNB Investment & Properties Ltd. and Pavitra Realcon Pvt. Ltd., reinforcing the decision to annul the assessments for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to quash the assessment orders for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 as null and void, based on the jurisdictional issue and the six-year limitation period under Section 153C. The reliance on the Delhi High Court's judgment in CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. was reaffirmed, ensuring consistency in the application of the law. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found