← 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

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4940/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 801A

such deduction, in respect of the enhanced claim for such deduction, in respect of the enhanced claim for such deduction, in respect of the undisclosed income shown in the return filed u/s 153A undisclosed income shown in the return filed u/s 153A undisclosed income shown in the return filed ... respect of make an enhanced claim for such deduction, in respect of make an enhanced claim for such deduction, in respect of the undisclosed income shown in the return filed u/s 153A the undisclosed income shown in the return filed u/s 153A the undisclosed income shown in the return filed

The DCIT, Circle I, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Chandresh K Dhandha, Jetpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 767/RJT/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.704& 766/Rjt/2010 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2003-2004 Shri Chandresh K Dhandha The Assistant Commissioner Prop. Of M/S Uma Textile Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Processors, Jetpur Rajkot

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Rs.33,37,63,982/- which works out to Rs.5,00,64,597/-. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.5,00,64,597/- was taxed as unaccounted & undisclosed income of the assessee from his business. ITA Nos.704-706, 766-767.Rjt/2010 (AYS 03-04 to 05-06) Chandresh K Dhanda 7 10. Aggrieved

The DCIT, Circle I, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Chandresh K Dhandha, Jetpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 766/RJT/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.704& 766/Rjt/2010 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2003-2004 Shri Chandresh K Dhandha The Assistant Commissioner Prop. Of M/S Uma Textile Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Processors, Jetpur Rajkot

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Rs.33,37,63,982/- which works out to Rs.5,00,64,597/-. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.5,00,64,597/- was taxed as unaccounted & undisclosed income of the assessee from his business. ITA Nos.704-706, 766-767.Rjt/2010 (AYS 03-04 to 05-06) Chandresh K Dhanda 7 10. Aggrieved

Shri Chandresh K Dhandha, Jetpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 706/RJT/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.704& 766/Rjt/2010 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2003-2004 Shri Chandresh K Dhandha The Assistant Commissioner Prop. Of M/S Uma Textile Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Processors, Jetpur Rajkot

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Rs.33,37,63,982/- which works out to Rs.5,00,64,597/-. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.5,00,64,597/- was taxed as unaccounted & undisclosed income of the assessee from his business. ITA Nos.704-706, 766-767.Rjt/2010 (AYS 03-04 to 05-06) Chandresh K Dhanda 7 10. Aggrieved

Shri Chandresh K Dhandha, Jetpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 705/RJT/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.704& 766/Rjt/2010 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2003-2004 Shri Chandresh K Dhandha The Assistant Commissioner Prop. Of M/S Uma Textile Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Processors, Jetpur Rajkot

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Rs.33,37,63,982/- which works out to Rs.5,00,64,597/-. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.5,00,64,597/- was taxed as unaccounted & undisclosed income of the assessee from his business. ITA Nos.704-706, 766-767.Rjt/2010 (AYS 03-04 to 05-06) Chandresh K Dhanda 7 10. Aggrieved

Shri Chandresh K Dhandha, Jetpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 704/RJT/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.704& 766/Rjt/2010 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2003-2004 Shri Chandresh K Dhandha The Assistant Commissioner Prop. Of M/S Uma Textile Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Processors, Jetpur Rajkot

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Rs.33,37,63,982/- which works out to Rs.5,00,64,597/-. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.5,00,64,597/- was taxed as unaccounted & undisclosed income of the assessee from his business. ITA Nos.704-706, 766-767.Rjt/2010 (AYS 03-04 to 05-06) Chandresh K Dhanda 7 10. Aggrieved

Rameshwar Prasad, Patna vs. ACIT Circle - 2 (1), Begusarai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 265/PAT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.265/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rameshwar Prasad………….. ………...…..…………………....Appellant Purendu Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Phulwarisharif, Patna-851117. [Pan: Afdpp7901H] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Begusarai…………….............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. V. Pathy, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 13, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.07.2023 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 Case Are That Original Return Of The Assessee Was Filed On 31.03.2011 Showing A Total Income Of Rs.12,65,190/-. Subsequently, The Assessment Proceedings For The Year Under Consideration Was Reopened By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 Of The Act With The Prior Approval Of The Pcit, Bhagalpur. In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Failed To Make Any Compliance In Respect Of The Notices Issued Time To Time By The Assessing Officer. Since, The Assessee Remained Non-Cooperative, The Assessing Officer Framed Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act By Making An Addition Of

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

making an addition of I.T.A. No.265/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rameshwar Prasad Rs.42,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee as undisclosed income under the head ‘income from other sources’. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but the assessee

Anish Garg, Patiala vs. ITO Ward-4, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 739/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(4)

that "as per information available with him, the assessee is involved in manage trading of shares of penny stocks in order to convert its undisclosed income into exempt income thereby the assessee has not paid the due taxes on the undisclosed income" and thereafter, it talks about the details ... just recorded a reason to believe rather recorded a conclusive finding that assessee is involved in manage trading of penny stock to convert his undisclosed income into exempt income. How the AO has reached such a conclusive finding and basis thereof is again not borne out from the reasons

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Krunal Maheshchandra Soni, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1638/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Dr.Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Astha Maniar, ARFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT.DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 43(5)

broker by issuing notice u/s.133(6) of the Income Tax Act, the AO could have refrained from making such high value transaction as undisclosed income. Having said, so the Ld.CIT(A) has directed the AO to verify the net profit for both the accounts namely intraday transactions, future and option

Manish K Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 986/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

taxmann.com 449 (Madras) wherein it was held that where the assessee himself stated in sworn statement during the search and seizure about his undisclosed income, same was to be levied tax on basis of admission with scrutinizing documents. The SLP of the assessee has since been dismissed

Jasmin K Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 984/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

taxmann.com 449 (Madras) wherein it was held that where the assessee himself stated in sworn statement during the search and seizure about his undisclosed income, same was to be levied tax on basis of admission with scrutinizing documents. The SLP of the assessee has since been dismissed

Alpesh K Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1144/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

taxmann.com 449 (Madras) wherein it was held that where the assessee himself stated in sworn statement during the search and seizure about his undisclosed income, same was to be levied tax on basis of admission with scrutinizing documents. The SLP of the assessee has since been dismissed

Jiten K. Ajmera (Legal Heir of Late Kishore H. Ajmera), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1143/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

taxmann.com 449 (Madras) wherein it was held that where the assessee himself stated in sworn statement during the search and seizure about his undisclosed income, same was to be levied tax on basis of admission with scrutinizing documents. The SLP of the assessee has since been dismissed

Ajmera Pharmasure Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1137/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

taxmann.com 449 (Madras) wherein it was held that where the assessee himself stated in sworn statement during the search and seizure about his undisclosed income, same was to be levied tax on basis of admission with scrutinizing documents. The SLP of the assessee has since been dismissed

Ashish K Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 1135/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

taxmann.com 449 (Madras) wherein it was held that where the assessee himself stated in sworn statement during the search and seizure about his undisclosed income, same was to be levied tax on basis of admission with scrutinizing documents. The SLP of the assessee has since been dismissed

Minal M Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 1112/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

taxmann.com 449 (Madras) wherein it was held that where the assessee himself stated in sworn statement during the search and seizure about his undisclosed income, same was to be levied tax on basis of admission with scrutinizing documents. The SLP of the assessee has since been dismissed

Reena A Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1111/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

taxmann.com 449 (Madras) wherein it was held that where the assessee himself stated in sworn statement during the search and seizure about his undisclosed income, same was to be levied tax on basis of admission with scrutinizing documents. The SLP of the assessee has since been dismissed

Avani J Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1110/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

taxmann.com 449 (Madras) wherein it was held that where the assessee himself stated in sworn statement during the search and seizure about his undisclosed income, same was to be levied tax on basis of admission with scrutinizing documents. The SLP of the assessee has since been dismissed

International Financial Services Ltd Mumbai, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1109/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

taxmann.com 449 (Madras) wherein it was held that where the assessee himself stated in sworn statement during the search and seizure about his undisclosed income, same was to be levied tax on basis of admission with scrutinizing documents. The SLP of the assessee has since been dismissed

Kapareva Development Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 17, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2065/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 153A

assessments made under Section 143(1)(a) or 143(3) of the Act, 1961 and to re- assess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search and seizure operation. 15.1 In view of the discussion hereinabove, once during search undisclosed income is found on unearthing ... High Court taking the view that the AO has the power to reassess the return of the assessee not only for the undisclosed income, which was found during the search operation but also with regard to material that was available at the time of original assessment does not require