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>Section 153C assessment invalid without mandatory conditions and beyond six-year limitation period</h1> <h3>DCIT Central Circle-II, Noida Versus Apple Commodities Ltd. And (Vice-Versa)</h3> DCIT Central Circle-II, Noida Versus Apple Commodities Ltd. And (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.2. Requirement of incriminating material for issuing notice under Section 153C.3. Jurisdiction and limitation period for issuing notice under Section 153C.4. Applicability of Supreme Court and High Court judgments on the case.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 153C:The primary issue was whether the Assessing Officer (AO) correctly issued the notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the notice was invalid as no incriminating material was found during the search that belonged to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) analyzed the satisfaction note and concluded that the AO failed to demonstrate that the seized documents belonged to the assessee company. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the AO did not mention the specific seized documents that belonged to the appellant company and did not record the finding that the seized documents had a bearing on the determination of total income. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 153C was deemed legally unsustainable and invalid.2. Requirement of Incriminating Material for Issuing Notice Under Section 153C:The Revenue's appeals centered on whether the additions made by the AO as unexplained investments were sustainable without incriminating material seized during the search. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the additions were based on regular books of accounts and no incriminating material was seized. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld this view, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Sinhagad Technical Education Society, which requires incriminating material for the relevant assessment year to issue a notice under Section 153C. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, which quashed the additions made by the AO due to the absence of incriminating material.3. Jurisdiction and Limitation Period for Issuing Notice Under Section 153C:The assessee's cross-objections argued that the notices for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the date of search was 11.11.2014, and the satisfaction note was recorded on 02.12.2016. According to the Tribunal, in cases of 'persons other than the searched person,' the block of six years for assessments should be immediately preceding the year in which the satisfaction under Section 153C was recorded. Therefore, the relevant assessment years were AY 2011-12 to AY 2016-17, making the notices for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 invalid. The Tribunal referenced several judgments, including CIT vs. Jasjit Singh and CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd., to support this interpretation.4. Applicability of Supreme Court and High Court Judgments:The Tribunal extensively referred to the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Sinhagad Technical Education Society and various High Court judgments, including CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. and ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. These judgments established that the existence of incriminating material is a prerequisite for issuing a notice under Section 153C and that the block of six years should be counted from the date of recording satisfaction by the AO. The Tribunal found that the AO did not meet these requirements, making the notices and subsequent assessments invalid.Conclusion:The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objections by the assessee were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision that the notices issued under Section 153C were invalid due to the absence of incriminating material and the incorrect application of the limitation period. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with the Supreme Court and High Court judgments, reinforcing the legal standards for issuing notices under Section 153C.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found