← 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

Nehal Ahmed, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle- 4, Patna

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 365/PAT/2024[A.Y. 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.365/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Nehal Ahmed..………………..….....…..…………………....Appellant House No – B/15, New Azimabad Colony (East), Sector-B, Sandalpur, Mahendru, Patna- 800006. [Pan: Aerpa2555B] Vs. Acit, Circle-4, Patna……..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Earned Income From Civil Contract. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Declaring An Income Of Rs.10,58,610/-. The Assessee Initially Had Filed Return Of Income U/S 139(9) Of The Act & Subsequently Revised It Declaring The Same Income. The Assessee Disclosed Income From Contractual Receipt Amounting To Rs.92,51,630/- & Declared Taxable Income U/S 44Ad On Presumptive Basis At Rs.9,25,163/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was

Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44A

Accordingly, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had undisclosed turnover of Rs.23,12,899/- and added the said amount as undisclosed income of the assessee. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) while sustaining ... there was an undisclosed difference of Rs.23,12,899/- in the hands of the assessee which was rightly added as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, the primary contention of the ld. AR before the Bench

Tulsi Reality, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 134/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.134/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tulsi Reality The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ G5 Anand Deep Complex Vadodara – 390 007 V/S. Gotri Road (Gujarat) Gotri, Vadodara – 390 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafft 8908 B (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 12.12.2019. Tulsi Reality Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 37(1)

survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 30.08.2016. During the survey, the assessee admitted an undisclosed income of Rs.50,10,000/- and stated that this amount represented receipts related to business activities. The admitted income was subsequently included in the return ... survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 30/08/2016, during which the assessee admitted undisclosed income of Rs.50,10,000/-. The partner of the assessee-firm, Shri Chandrakantbhai Vadilal Patel, in his statement recorded under Section

Indraprastha Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Sangli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -5, Sangli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 184/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.184/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Indraprastha Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Patsanstha Ltd., Islampur, Walwa, Sangli- 415409. Pan : Aaaai0626B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Revenue By : Shri Uma Shankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: It Is A Recalled Matter. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.03.2022 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Modified Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground No. 1: Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) / Nfac Is Erred In Disallowing Deduction U/S 80P Of Rs. 65,81,336/-.

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad
Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Rs.65,81,336/- on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act and Rs.3,57,44,782/- undisclosed income u/s 68 of the IT Act, being the entire credit entries as per the AO. 4. In first appeal, after considering the reply ... claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act & another addition of Rs.3,57,44,782/- u/s 68 of the IT Act as undisclosed income. However, from perusal of the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A), we find that the assessee in the first appellate proceedings has only challenged