← All Phrases

“undisclosed income”

Search & SeizureSection 153ASection 153A9,092 judgments

The decision most relied on for undisclosed income is CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), cited in 3,235 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on undisclosed income

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth
356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court
1,465
citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal
290 CTR 263 · 2016 · High Court
583
citing judgments

Assessment based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act requires the statement to be relatable to incriminating material or evidence found during the search, especially when considering Section 158BB(1) which restricts computation of undisclosed income to evidence found during search.

CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia
352 ITR 493 · 2013 · High Court
537
citing judgments

Section 153A can be invoked to reassess income for all years under consideration prior to a search, even if returns for those years were processed under Section 143(1)(a). The Assessing Officer has the power to reassess total income in such cases without fetters.

CIT v. P. Mohanakala
291 ITR 278 · 2007 · Supreme Court
525
citing judgments

The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of concrete rebuttal by the assessee, circumstantial evidence holds significant weight, applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability, particularly when assessing undisclosed income or unexplained cash credits.

Society v. UOI
394 ITR 220 · 2017 · Supreme Court
493
citing judgments

Uncorroborated loose papers or documents found during a search operation have no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining undisclosed income. Additions based on such material require independent evidence to establish trustworthiness and a direct link to the assessee.

CIT v. President Industries
258 ITR 654 · 2002 · High Court
471
citing judgments

When books of account are rejected and unaccounted sales or receipts are discovered, the income addition is restricted to the net profit element embedded in these undisclosed transactions, not the entire sale proceeds or receipts, especially if corresponding purchases are not proven to be outside the books.

CIT v. Gurinder Singh Bawa
386 ITR 483 · 2016 · High Court
416
citing judgments

If no incriminating material is found during a search operation regarding a particular issue, then no addition can be made concerning that issue in an assessment under section 153A of the Income-tax Act.

Judgments citing undisclosed income

Shri S.S. Kaushal, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 923/CHANDI/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.922/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.923/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Shri S. S. Kaushal Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Prop. M/S Shiva Enterprises Railway Board Building 4-5, Meghna Complex, The Mall The Mall Vs. Shimla (Hp) - 171001 Shimla - 171003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acapk-5749-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. V. K. Gulati (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Gulati (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

made addition of Rs.9,26,322/- on account of purchase of vehicle, sustained addition of Rs.16,72,680/- for undisclosed income and capital gains addition has been restricted to Rs.3,72,566/-. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeals before us. 3. It could be seen that

S.S. Kaushal, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 922/CHANDI/2025[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.922/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.923/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Shri S. S. Kaushal Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Prop. M/S Shiva Enterprises Railway Board Building 4-5, Meghna Complex, The Mall The Mall Vs. Shimla (Hp) - 171001 Shimla - 171003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acapk-5749-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. V. K. Gulati (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Gulati (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

made addition of Rs.9,26,322/- on account of purchase of vehicle, sustained addition of Rs.16,72,680/- for undisclosed income and capital gains addition has been restricted to Rs.3,72,566/-. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeals before us. 3. It could be seen that

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1180/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata…..…………..………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd..……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 62A, Hazra Road, Kol-700019. [Pan: Aaccm0280B] Appearances By: Shri Mohit Mrinal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N S Saini, Ar & Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Of The Cit(Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 1075 Days & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. The Contents Of The Said Affidavit Are As Under: Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 73

addition of Rs.6.45 crores which was made by the Assessing Officer treating Rs.6,45,00,000/- by allowing the benefit of peak credit as undisclosed income and added the same to the income of the assessee. His submission is that the assessee company during the year received share application money