<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (7) TMI 1309 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775241</link>
    <description>ITAT Hyderabad allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal against addition of Rs. 17 lakhs under section 69 for unexplained investment in Batchmix plant purchase. The tribunal found that since the original return was filed on 27.10.2018 and section 153C notice was issued on 25.02.2022, the assessment for AY 2018-19 was not abated on search date or notice issuance. Following SC precedent in Abhisar Buildwell case, ITAT held that for non-abated assessments under section 153C, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during search. Since the AO&#039;s addition was not based on seized material referenced in the satisfaction note, it lacked jurisdiction and was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:25:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=837697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1309 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775241</link>
      <description>ITAT Hyderabad allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal against addition of Rs. 17 lakhs under section 69 for unexplained investment in Batchmix plant purchase. The tribunal found that since the original return was filed on 27.10.2018 and section 153C notice was issued on 25.02.2022, the assessment for AY 2018-19 was not abated on search date or notice issuance. Following SC precedent in Abhisar Buildwell case, ITAT held that for non-abated assessments under section 153C, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during search. Since the AO&#039;s addition was not based on seized material referenced in the satisfaction note, it lacked jurisdiction and was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>