Income Tax : The framework clarifies that search operations can be initiated only when authorities have credible information and recorded reaso...
Income Tax : The Court held that search action under tax law requires concrete material and cannot be based on assumptions. Lack of valid “re...
Goods and Services Tax : The Court held that presumptions under Sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Income Tax Act apply only to income-tax proceedings. GST a...
Income Tax : Explains how Section 113 mandates surcharge on undisclosed income despite missing references in earlier Finance Acts. Clarifies le...
Income Tax : Learn the step-by-step procedure followed by Income Tax authorities during search and seizure operations, including legal safeguar...
Income Tax : CBDT’s 2025 Search & Seizure Manual guides tax officers on lawful, tech-driven investigations under Sections 132–132B of the I...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : In-depth analysis of the Income Tax Department crackdown in Chhattisgarh, uncovering a Rs. 13 crore scam involving a PEP, associat...
Income Tax : Ministry of Finance reveals Income Tax Department's massive search operation exposing a major tax evasion scheme in Mumbai's elect...
Income Tax : Income Tax Department's recent searches reveal tax evasion schemes by contractors, leading to unaccounted cash and asset creation....
Income Tax : The issue was whether a search-based assessment could be completed within 12 months after a Supreme Court ruling. The Court held t...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT quashes ₹11 crore in tax additions, ruling that additions in a search case cannot be made without finding incriminati...
Income Tax : Supreme Court in Laljibhai Mandalia case upholds tax search, clarifies reasons to believe and limits judicial review over the suff...
Income Tax : Rupesh Kantilal Savla Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) - Power to assess block period of ten years could not be attracted in case of a Income...
Income Tax : Explore Section 153A of Income Tax Act, its implications, and judicial interpretations. Learn about search proceedings, panchnama,...
Income Tax : CBDT introduces ITR-B for search and seizure cases under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, effective from 1st September 2024....
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department carried out searches on 14.12.2020 in a group case from Erode in Tamil Nadu, covering 15 premises at Ero...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department carried out search and seizure operations on 13.12.2020 in the case of a Chandigarh based listed pharmac...
Income Tax : The related concerns of the assessee group are involved in financing, money lending and real estate development. The unaccounted t...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department has carried out searches at 5 locations in Chennai and Madurai on 4.11.2020 in the case of a Chennai bas...
DCI Search and Seizure Operations Reveal Undisclosed Income of Rs. 438 CroreThe Directorate of Criminal Investigation (DCI) was created vide Notification dated 30th May, 2011 and 19th August 2011 to perform functions in respect of criminal matters having any financial implications punishable as an offence under any direct tax law including inter-alia:
A search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 22.11.2006. Assessee is an individual filed the return of income at Rs.5,88,06,735/- on 02.09.2008. This amount included undisclosed investment in jewellery of Rs. 12,85,777/-
In view of our decision in respect of additional ground no.3, other issues raised by the assessee by way of additional grounds and original grounds as per the memo of appeal do not call for any adjudication at this stage, because after deciding the technical aspect, the learned CIT(A) has to decide the entire issues again.
In the result, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest @ 12% in respect of the amount of Rs. 6,33,800/- for the period from 27.12.2006 to 24.05.2011 and a writ of mandamus directing the payment of the interest is accordingly issued. The respondent shall pay the interest within a period of six weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
Search operation was carried out in one M/s. G.B. & Company under section 132. Though the premises of the assessee were also searched during search operations, the same were in the capacity of an employee of the said company and not in individual capacity.
In the present case, admittedly there is no past demand which has remained unpaid. Therefore only when the Assessee files a return of income quantifying his total income for the assessment years in question can it be said that there has arisen tax liability for the relevant AYs. The due date for filing return of income or the fact that advance tax was due on a particular date will not make the liability of the Assessee an “existing tax liability” on those dates. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. R.V. Raibagy & Co. & others ITR Case Nos. 4 to 10 of 2003 dated 29.3.2005 has also taken the view that adjustment of seized cash against tax due u/s.140A of the Act, on income declared in a return of income filed should be allowed.
Obviously therefore, the Assessing Officer of the searched person during the pendency of the assessment proceedings, could not have arrived at the satisfaction that the income was that of the present assessee and not the persons originally searched.
The search operation was carried out at the residence as well as business premises of Shri Yakub A. Colddrink where from the books of account of the firm as per Annexure A/11 & A/12 and loose paper as per Annexure-3 were found and seized. As per Section 153C, the books of account belonging to the other person is required to be found and seized at the premises of the search took place where assessment u/s. 153A has been made i.e. searched party.
The brief facts leading to above issue are that assessee incurred undisclosed expenditure for furniture, fixture, flooring etc. incurred in respect of Flat No. 501, at 20 Lee Road, Kolkata for asst. yr. 2008-09. The said expenditure was found recorded in RM-1 and RM-2. The expenditure of Rs. 35 lakhs was incurred by the assessee in connection with purchase of furniture of director’s flat at 20 Lee Road on behalf of M/s Fort Projects (P) Ltd. It is pertinent to note that no such addition of Rs. 35 lakhs on account of undisclosed expenditure was made by AO in very first place and this will be clear from perusal of assessment order for asst. yr. 2008-09,
In the present case, we notice that that petitioners belonged to the same family or group. They were subjected to common search operation. Their assessments were therefore, under proposal for transfer. A show cause notice was issued to all of them in which the Commissioner called upon them to explain why the cases should not be centralised at Ahmedabad for effective and coordinated investigation. After considering their objections and permitting the oral submissions by the authorised representative, the Commissioner passed the order transferring the cases on the ground that cases were required to be centralised. Since Bhavnagar did not have Central Range Office, they could be transferred at Ahmedabad. Their request that cases be consolidated at Bhavnagar or Mumbai was considered but not accepted. They were instead offered alternative places for transfer of cases within the jurisdiction of Surat, Baroda or Rajkot Office. They did not accept the offer. It was thereupon that the Commissioner proceeded to finalise his proposed transfer of cases from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad.
