<?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 (9) TMI 1714 - ITAT, CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465005</link>
    <description>ITAT (Chandigarh) allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s grounds. It held that approval u/s 153D was granted in a mechanical manner by the Addl. CIT/JCIT, making the assessments unsustainable. Further, in absence of any executed warrant or panchnama, no search was conducted on the assessee; hence assessment u/s 153A was invalid. Documents seized from a third party could not be used in a regular assessment u/s 143(3) without following the mandatory procedure u/s 153C, rendering the additions bad in law. On merits also, the Tribunal found no specific incriminating material or credible statement implicating the assessee, and upheld the deletion of additions by CIT(A).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 13:08:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=868293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 1714 - ITAT, CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465005</link>
      <description>ITAT (Chandigarh) allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s grounds. It held that approval u/s 153D was granted in a mechanical manner by the Addl. CIT/JCIT, making the assessments unsustainable. Further, in absence of any executed warrant or panchnama, no search was conducted on the assessee; hence assessment u/s 153A was invalid. Documents seized from a third party could not be used in a regular assessment u/s 143(3) without following the mandatory procedure u/s 153C, rendering the additions bad in law. On merits also, the Tribunal found no specific incriminating material or credible statement implicating the assessee, and upheld the deletion of additions by CIT(A).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465005</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>