← 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

Gorja Steel Processors, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effects

ITA 2907/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.2905 To 2907/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153D

account by making bogus ITAs No.2905 to 2907/Del/2022 purchase/sales, under-invoicing, taking bogus advances in order to reduce its profits and to introduce their undisclosed income. In para 5.11, the AO has mentioned of the fact that a reply dated 24.04.2021 was filed explaining the nature of business

Gorja Steel Processors, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effects

ITA 2906/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.2905 To 2907/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153D

account by making bogus ITAs No.2905 to 2907/Del/2022 purchase/sales, under-invoicing, taking bogus advances in order to reduce its profits and to introduce their undisclosed income. In para 5.11, the AO has mentioned of the fact that a reply dated 24.04.2021 was filed explaining the nature of business

Gorja Steel Processors, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effects

ITA 2905/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.2905 To 2907/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153D

account by making bogus ITAs No.2905 to 2907/Del/2022 purchase/sales, under-invoicing, taking bogus advances in order to reduce its profits and to introduce their undisclosed income. In para 5.11, the AO has mentioned of the fact that a reply dated 24.04.2021 was filed explaining the nature of business

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1717/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.K. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Smt. Mamata Choudhary
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

date of search, then the AO shall have the power to assess the total income of such assessment years, including any undisclosed income unearthed :8: ITA Nos. 1717 to 1720/Hyd/2017 & during the course of search based on any material, but in respect of unabated / concluded assessments, as on the date ... search, the Assessing Officer shall reassess only the undisclosed income unearthed as a result of search on the basis of material found during the course of search. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that even in the case of unabated/concluded assessments, the AO shall have jurisdiction to assess

Bhawani Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1079/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

this connection, assessee was show cause as to why the amount of Rs.84,05,000/- as stated above should not be considered as his undisclosed income and why the same shall not be added to his total income for the year under consideration. The reply submitted by assessee in response

Sanga Automobiles (P) Ltd, Jaipur vs. The ACIT, Circle - 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 911/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 144Section 250

making addition of Rs. 1,58,70,374/- arbitrarily by alleging the cash deposited during the de-monetization period as being Undisclosed income of the assessee. Appellant prays that the deposits so made is out of available cash balance which is mainly on account of accumulation of the cash sales

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Gordhandas Nandkishore Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed with no orders as to

ITA 556/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas, Addl. CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessed income of the Assessee for the impugned financial year, the cash deposited in banks against such cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income of the Assessee u/s 68 without bringing on record any credible evidence/material in support of such allegation merely on the basis of surmises ... assessed income of the assessee for the impugned financial year, the cash deposited in banks against such cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee under section 68 without bringing on record any credible evidence/material in support of such allegation merely on the basis of surmises

Gemco International, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 410/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

formed the opinion based on the statement recorded from the assessee, consequent to post search proceedings taken up by the DDIT(Inv), which shows undisclosed income which is the very basis of reopening the assessment. The search is conducted on 22-8-2008 which comes under the assessment year ... formed the opinion based on the statement recorded from the assessee, consequent to post search proceedings taken up by the DDIT (Inv), which shows undisclosed income which is the very basis of reopening the assessment. ……. …….. Though, both provisions of the Act empowers the assessing officer to assess or reassess

Brugg Cables (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2941/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbrugg Cables (India) P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3), C/O Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate, Gurgaon. F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. (Pan : Aafcb2037E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyajeet Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 20.11.2017 & Subsequently, Revised It On 05.06.2018 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.72,09,630/- For The Ay 2017-18. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For The Reason “Exports/Imports, Claim Of Any Other Amount

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 69C

disclosure of income involved. Therefore, we are inclined to decide the issue in favour of the assessee as there is no involvement of undisclosed income. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 4th day of October

Best City Realtors India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 1515/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbest City Realtors India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cc – 06, Plot No.H-8, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaccb7687B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Nimisha Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 22.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That In Making Addition, The Ld/- Cit(A) Has Erred In Recording Adverse Findings Which Were Not Only Based On Misappreciation Of Evidence But Are Also Based On Non Existent Facts & Such Findings As Recorded Are Factually Incorrect To State That The Assessee Company Has Manipulated The Transactions With C. R. Sons Builders & Developers

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)

consideration. Section 158 BC(b) provides for enquiry and assessment. The said provision reads "that the assessing officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the Block period in the manner laid down in Section 158 BB and the provisions of Section 142, sub-section ... Section 143(2) itself becomes necessary only where it becomes necessary to check the return, so that where block return conforms to the undisclosed income inferred by the authorities, there is no reason, why the authorities should issue notice under Section 143(2). However, if an assessment

Issa Mohammad, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1569/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Issa Mohammad Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata 37/1/2, Cossipore Road, P.O. Cossipore- Vs 700002. (Pan: Akppm7454B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Additional Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Additional CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

Mohammad A.Y. 2016-17 Rs.89,45,930/- with the primary addition made u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and on account of undisclosed income. i) Addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(2) of the Act - during the scrutiny assessment, the AO noted that assessee had purchased an immovable property ... Rs.74,50,000/-. Due to the absence of evidence supporting the assesee’s claim the AO made an addition of Rs.35,33,800/- as undisclosed income from the property sale transaction. The assessee’s appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, where the appeal of the assessee partially allowed

Vengali Abdul Khader, Pattambi vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Vengali Abdul Khader Acit, Central Circle Vilayur West, Poottapalam Aayakr Bahvan, S.T. Nagar Vs. Pattambi 679309 Shaktanthampural Nagar [Pan: Afupa3774J] Thrissur - 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Paulose, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132BSection 139Section 234ASection 234B

Khader liability created on 1st April once the financial year ends. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should have adjusted the tax liability relating to the undisclosed income declared by the assessee by way of self assessment tax on 1st April, 2019. In that eventuality, there could not have been levy ... relevant finding is extracted as under: 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the assessee had to pay tax on the undisclosed income declared by him in the return of income. Admittedly, the assessee had not made any payment towards self-assessment tax but had only pleaded

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Mahaveer Kumar Jain, Jaipur

ITA 469/JPR/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024
For Appellant: Shri Tanju Agarwal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 69

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 56,60,800/- made on account of undisclosed income from Garden Mahaveer Paradise without appreciating the fact that during the course of search proceedings, incriminating documents depicting the actual rate of booking ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 62,37,040/ made on account of undisclosed income from Garden Mahaveer Paradise without appreciating the fact that during the course of search proceedings, incriminating documents depicting the actual rate of booking

Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt Ltd, Kota, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce, Kota, Rajasthan

ITA 302/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

addition made by ld. AO u/s 69A and taxing the same by applying provisions of section 115BBE of IT. Act alleging the same as undisclosed income of appellant and further erred in reducing the same income from business income declared by the assessee and adding the same as Income from ... Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT consideration received by the assessee on sale of property is chargeable to tax as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the act." In the above order relied upon by the appellant CIT (A) has exceeded his jurisdiction in enhancing the income

Shyam Mahabirprasad Jatia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 401/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 57

Civil Appeal No.6580 of 2021 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the object of section 153A is to bring under tax undisclosed income which is found during course of search or pursuant to search or requisition, therefore, only in a case where undisclosed income is found

Shyam Mahabirprasad Jatia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 400/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 57

Civil Appeal No.6580 of 2021 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the object of section 153A is to bring under tax undisclosed income which is found during course of search or pursuant to search or requisition, therefore, only in a case where undisclosed income is found

Shyam Mahabir Prasad Jatia, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 399/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 57

Civil Appeal No.6580 of 2021 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the object of section 153A is to bring under tax undisclosed income which is found during course of search or pursuant to search or requisition, therefore, only in a case where undisclosed income is found

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. James Hotels Ltd, Chandigarh

ITA 552/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Said Resolution To Enhance Authorized Share Capital.

For Appellant: Shri R.K. KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271D

neither deposit nor loan, the provisions have no application at all. The advances of share application money have not flowed from any undisclosed income of the assessee company or the concerned persons, the same is duly substantiated from the records as well as the findings

Jaya Balajee Real Media Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle - 2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 674/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Jaya Balaji Real Media Pvt Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Limited, Central Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecb3005F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 68

course of search operation. Further, even during the course of post-search investigation, the appellant has admitted cash deposits into bank account as undisclosed income and also agreed to offer income under PMGKY. However, only in the month of March 2017, the appellant has filed an affidavit and stated that

Msn Institute of Medical Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 483/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 483/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Msn Institute Of Medical Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Sciences Private Ltd Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcm1030E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Cas Shri M.V. Prasad & Shri K.S Rajendra Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 01/10/2024

For Appellant: CAs Shri M.V. Prasad and ShriFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 69

agreed to admit the balance of Rs.68.00 lakhs as on-money paid for purchase of land and the same has been disclosed as undisclosed income for the A.Y 2015- 16. The said admission has been confirmed by Mr. MSN Reddy in the capacity of Chairman of the group. The Assessing