“undisclosed income”

Baljeet Bhatia, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Kaveri restaurant for the A

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

hands of the Directors/Partners/Proprietors where declarations had been made. The Assessing Officer treated the entire receipts as per the said diary/register as the undisclosed income of the assessee. The total addition made was to an extent of ₹ 52.10 crores resulting into total assessment of ₹ 63.20 crores. It was a submission ... only 300 person admittedly it would have to be considered that the entire amounts mentioned in those diaries cannot be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessees. To this extent we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the assessee is entitled

Sanjay Bhatia, Ranchi vs. Dcitacit Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Kaveri restaurant for the A

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

hands of the Directors/Partners/Proprietors where declarations had been made. The Assessing Officer treated the entire receipts as per the said diary/register as the undisclosed income of the assessee. The total addition made was to an extent of ₹ 52.10 crores resulting into total assessment of ₹ 63.20 crores. It was a submission ... only 300 person admittedly it would have to be considered that the entire amounts mentioned in those diaries cannot be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessees. To this extent we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the assessee is entitled

Sanjay Bhatia, Ranchi vs. Dcitacit Circle -1, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Kaveri restaurant for the A

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

hands of the Directors/Partners/Proprietors where declarations had been made. The Assessing Officer treated the entire receipts as per the said diary/register as the undisclosed income of the assessee. The total addition made was to an extent of ₹ 52.10 crores resulting into total assessment of ₹ 63.20 crores. It was a submission ... only 300 person admittedly it would have to be considered that the entire amounts mentioned in those diaries cannot be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessees. To this extent we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the assessee is entitled

Santosh Agrawal, Chattisgarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Cirlce-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

show that the said brokers in their respective statements indicating the assessee involvement in manipulation of stock prices. The undisclosed income of an assessee has to be computed on the basis of the evidences and material found during the search. The statement recorded under section

Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

show that the said brokers in their respective statements indicating the assessee involvement in manipulation of stock prices. The undisclosed income of an assessee has to be computed on the basis of the evidences and material found during the search. The statement recorded under section

Sourabh Kumar Vishamvar Singh, Adajan Surat vs. ITO Ward 2(5), Income Tax Office, Court Area, Near Jamui More

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata) Sourabh Kumar Vishamvar Vs Ito, Ward-2(5), Near Jamui Singh, More, Lakhisarai, A-301, Keshav Complex, Bihar Honey Park Road, Adjan, Surat Gujarat-395009 Pan No. :Cgspk 5166 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna, Dated 18.09.2023 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs. 24,00,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S. 68 Of The I.T Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Taxing The Addition By Taking The Rate @77.25% By Attracting S. 115Bbe Instead Of Normal Tax Rate. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Taxing The Income U/S 115Bbe @ 77.25% In A Retrospective Manner By Applying The Duly Substituted S.115Bbe Inserted Retroactive Instead Of Taxing It At 35.54% As Per The Old Provisions Of S.115Bbe.

cash book, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee either has received banned notes during after demonetization i.e. 08.10.2016 or he has deposited undisclosed income during demonetization period. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee and in compliance to the same the assessee filed his reply; however ... Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the same. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added Rs.24 lakhs treating the same as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s.68 of the Act and taxed u/s.115BBE of the Act @60%. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before

Ankur Sahu, Chhindwara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Chhindwara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2013-14 Ankur Sahu, Chhindwara Ito Ward-1 V. S/O Nirmal Sahu, Income Tax Office, Diwanchipura, Chhindwara, Vivekanand Colony, Madhya Pradesh-480001. Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh-480001. Pan:Bjops5478N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Bardia, Fca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R

without jurisdiction. 2. The Ld. CIT Appeal erred in law and facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.10,90,000/- as undisclosed income. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add or amend any grounds of appeal.” 2. The only effective ground is against sustaining the addition

DCIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur vs. Mahendra Gope, Jamshedpur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

there was a survey on the premises of the assessee on 5,10,2019. In the course of survey, the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income of Rs.1,88,12,008/- on account of discrepancy in the bills and vouchers most-specifically non-verifiable expenses. It was the submission that

DCIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur vs. Mahendra Gope, Jamshedpur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathanshri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahay & Ratnesh Nandan Sahay & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2018-19

there was a survey on the premises of the assessee on 5,10,2019. In the course of survey, the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income of Rs.1,88,12,008/- on account of discrepancy in the bills and vouchers most-specifically non-verifiable expenses. It was the submission that

Crystal Thermotech Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner Pf Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

imagination could the assessee be subjected to penalty for concealment when the return income itself was accepted without modification and there was no undisclosed income which is sine qua non for invoking section 271(1)(c). 5. That the assessee craves lave to add, alter or amend any ground before ... under Section 132(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) in this case on 17.08.2017 during which the assessee offered undisclosed income in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and paid the due taxes while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A

Crystal Thermotech Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

imagination could the assessee be subjected to penalty for concealment when the return income itself was accepted without modification and there was no undisclosed income which is sine qua non for invoking section 271(1)(c). 5. That the assessee craves lave to add, alter or amend any ground before ... under Section 132(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) in this case on 17.08.2017 during which the assessee offered undisclosed income in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and paid the due taxes while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Shri Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

isolation, it must have a visible, direct nexus with me on the face of it, which is missing here and hence cannot lead to undisclosed income on assessee`s part. (viii) The amounts and dates noted on the seized data may be for anything but not for assessee. 16. However