Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.89 seconds)The Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 153C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Bharat Bhushan Jain Charitable Trust on 18 December, 2019
b. Therefore, the inordinate delay committed in issuance of notices u/s
45
ITA No.8205/DEL/2025
ITA No.156/DEL/2026
153C of the Act on 12.12.2022 is not covered even by the relaxation of
limitation period provided by CBDT as aforesaid and thus, the notices
u/s 153C of the Act so issued on 12.12.2022 after the delay of almost 15
months' time is barred by limitation in view of the binding judgment of
the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v.
Bharat Bhushan Jain [2015] 61 taxmann.com 89 (Delhi) wherein it has
been held that if any notice u/s 158BD (153C) of the Act is issued
beyond 10 months' time from the date of assessment order framed in the
case of person searched, the same will be considered as delayed and
accordingly, the said notice will be time barred.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Girish B. Chaudhari, L/O. Of Late Shri ... vs Income-Tax Officer,, Nashik on 9 February, 2022
a) Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Girish
Chaudhary in ITA No. 22 of 2007 order dated 22.05.2007 [Copy of the
judgement dated 22.05.2007 is enclosed at Page Nos. 34 to 41 of CCL]
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on 14 July, 2020
The ratio laid down by these judgments is that when the mandatory
requirement of section 65B of the Evidence Act has not been complied with in
respect of any of the electronic records relied upon by the department, they
being not admissible in evidence, the assessment orders being passed on the
same, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Mantram Commodities Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Ito Ward-1(5), Faridabad on 25 April, 2022
18. Further, satisfaction has been recorded to initiate proceedings u/s 153C of the
Act on the basis of an undated & unsigned dumb document from the perusal
of which, it cannot at all be inferred that as to whether it has a bearing on the
determination of total income of the assessees for AY 2017-18 as the said
document does not contain any date. Accordingly, in the absence of any date,
it is unascertainable for the Ld. AO to assume jurisdiction for any assessment
year including the impugned assessment year, i.e., AY 2017-18 and thus, the
Ld. AO has assumed the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 153C of the
Act on mechanical manner with identical satisfaction note in both the cases
63
ITA No.8205/DEL/2025
ITA No.156/DEL/2026
before us as reproduced at Para 11(e) above and therefore, the satisfaction so
recorded and the consequent assessment so framed pursuant to the said
defective satisfaction note so recorded u/s 153C of the Act are both legally
unsustainable and void-ab-initio and accordingly, deserves to be quashed
based on the decision of Saksham Commodities Ltd.(supra) and the ratio is
reproduced hereunder:
Section 148 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Spl???S Siddhartha Ltd. on 14 September, 2011
Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT
vs. SPL‟S SIDDHARTHA LTD. in ITA No.836 of 2011: