← 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

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited, Secunderabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 552/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: : Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

concluded under section 153 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act'). b) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that only undisclosed income or undisclosed assets detected during the search proceedings could be brought to tax under section 153A of the Act. c) The learned ... under section 153A of the Act is not tenable in law since the learned AO could not bringing on record any incriminating materials or undisclosed income found during the course of search proceedings. d) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that it is settled position of law that

Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 539/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: : Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

concluded under section 153 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act'). b) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that only undisclosed income or undisclosed assets detected during the search proceedings could be brought to tax under section 153A of the Act. c) The learned ... under section 153A of the Act is not tenable in law since the learned AO could not bringing on record any incriminating materials or undisclosed income found during the course of search proceedings. d) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that it is settled position of law that

Shyamsundar Maheswari Subham Maheswari, Guntur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 180/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 180/Viz/2024 (धििाधरणिरध/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shyam Sunder Maheshwari V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Guntur - 522007 Subham Maheshwari 4-4-141, 7Th Line Chandramouli Nagar Guntur – 522007, Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Avdps7940P] (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) करदाताकाप्त्ि्िध/ Assessee Represented By None : राजसकाप्त्ि्िध/ Department Represented By Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar : सुिवाईसमापहोिेक््त्ि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing 03.09.2024 : घोषणाक्तार्ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2024 : आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061812956 (1) Dated 01.03.2024

Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessment under section 144 / 147 was completed by the Assessing Officer and made an addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- on account of undisclosed income from the head “income from other sources”. During the year under consideration assessee had received loan amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from M/s. Emkay Consultant

Shri Shamlaji Aarogya Seva Trust, Godhra vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Surat at -Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 138/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.138/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Shamlaji Aarogya Seva Trust The Pr.Cit (Central) बनाम/ Kanelav Road Surat At Vadodara Dhahod Road V/S. Godhra – 389 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Surat [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, Wherein The Pcit Held That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 16.11.2019, Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interests Of

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Ld.PCIT's decision, noting that the AO had not sufficiently investigated the contradictory explanations provided by the assessee. The Ld.DR further argued that the undisclosed income as identified during the course of survey is of the assessee trust and therefore AO accepting that the undisclosed income admitted and disclosed

Sarangabani Kirubakaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1237/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1237/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 31- 03-2022. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.8.04 Lacs & Rs.5 Lacs. The Assessee Is Also Aggrieved By Computation Of Long-Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of Rs.157.45 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments On Merits As Well As On Legal Grounds & Also Raised Additional Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 69

assessee was subjected to survey u/s 133A and excess stock was found. The Ld. AO held that excess stock was to be added as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 69C. It was observed by Hon’ble Court as under: - 7. However, before parting with, we may observe that there ... borrowed or repaid on hundi which have been enacted in the Income Tax Act, 1961 from time to time to bring to tax the undisclosed income either as undisclosed income or the same found during the course of investigation either during the Survey under section 133A or the search operation

Sarangabani Kirubagaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1236/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1236/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.30 Lacs & Assessment Of Short- Term Capital Gain (Stcg) For Rs.12.19 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments & Submitted That Impugned Addition Of Rs.30 Lacs U/S 69 Represent Advance Received Through

For Appellant: Ms.T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

assessee was subjected to survey u/s 133A and excess stock was found. The Ld. AO held that excess stock was to be added as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 69C. It was observed by Hon’ble Court as under: - 7. However, before parting with, we may observe that there ... borrowed or repaid on hundi which have been enacted in the Income Tax Act, 1961 from time to time to bring to tax the undisclosed income either as undisclosed income or the same found during the course of investigation either during the Survey under section 133A or the search operation

Sarangabani Kirubakaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1235/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1235/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami,(Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30-03-2022. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.6.50 Lacs. 2. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments & Submitted That Impugned Addition Represents Receipt Of Loan From A Friend Through Banking Channels Which Could Not Be Added U/S 69. This Addition Does Not Satisfy

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami,(Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153CSection 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

assessee was subjected to survey u/s 133A and excess stock was found. The Ld. AO held that excess stock was to be added as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 69C. It was observed by Hon’ble Court as under: - 7. However, before parting with, we may observe that there ... borrowed or repaid on hundi which have been enacted in the Income Tax Act, 1961 from time to time to bring to tax the undisclosed income either as undisclosed income or the same found during the course of investigation either during the Survey under section 133A or the search operation

Navbharat Builders, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3534/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaranavbharat Builders, Vs. Acit-Circle-22(1). 323/A-2, Piramalchambers, Behind Hotelanugraha, Lalbaugh. Mumbai-400012. New Shahupuri, Kolhapur-416001. Maharashtra Pan/Gir No. Aabfn1159L (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri. Prashant Ghumane.Ar Respondent By Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assesse Has Filed The Appeal Against Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal Nfac Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: "1.The Order Bad, Illegal & Without Jurisdiction 1.1 In The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appellate Order Framed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in making the addition of Rs. 1,62,85,405/- as alleged income from other sources / undisclosed income. 5.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such addition was called