← 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

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

seized by the search team. During the assessment proceedings, based on such transactions, the AO was of the opinion that the assessee had undisclosed income from unaccounted cash dealing. On question by the AO about the impugned seized documents, the assessee voluntarily offered an additional income at 1% of total ... penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income is determined on an estimated basis, the AO observed that the quantum of undisclosed income was arrived at on the basis of incriminating materials seized during the course of search. 7.2 The AO further held that the case

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1839/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

seized by the search team. During the assessment proceedings, based on such transactions, the AO was of the opinion that the assessee had undisclosed income from unaccounted cash dealing. On question by the AO about the impugned seized documents, the assessee voluntarily offered an additional income at 1% of total ... penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income is determined on an estimated basis, the AO observed that the quantum of undisclosed income was arrived at on the basis of incriminating materials seized during the course of search. 7.2 The AO further held that the case

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

seized by the search team. During the assessment proceedings, based on such transactions, the AO was of the opinion that the assessee had undisclosed income from unaccounted cash dealing. On question by the AO about the impugned seized documents, the assessee voluntarily offered an additional income at 1% of total ... penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income is determined on an estimated basis, the AO observed that the quantum of undisclosed income was arrived at on the basis of incriminating materials seized during the course of search. 7.2 The AO further held that the case

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

seized by the search team. During the assessment proceedings, based on such transactions, the AO was of the opinion that the assessee had undisclosed income from unaccounted cash dealing. On question by the AO about the impugned seized documents, the assessee voluntarily offered an additional income at 1% of total ... penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income is determined on an estimated basis, the AO observed that the quantum of undisclosed income was arrived at on the basis of incriminating materials seized during the course of search. 7.2 The AO further held that the case

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

seized by the search team. During the assessment proceedings, based on such transactions, the AO was of the opinion that the assessee had undisclosed income from unaccounted cash dealing. On question by the AO about the impugned seized documents, the assessee voluntarily offered an additional income at 1% of total ... penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income is determined on an estimated basis, the AO observed that the quantum of undisclosed income was arrived at on the basis of incriminating materials seized during the course of search. 7.2 The AO further held that the case

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

seized by the search team. During the assessment proceedings, based on such transactions, the AO was of the opinion that the assessee had undisclosed income from unaccounted cash dealing. On question by the AO about the impugned seized documents, the assessee voluntarily offered an additional income at 1% of total ... penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income is determined on an estimated basis, the AO observed that the quantum of undisclosed income was arrived at on the basis of incriminating materials seized during the course of search. 7.2 The AO further held that the case

JCIT(OSD), Circle 111, Dehradun, Subhash Road vs. M/S Suryanchal Furnitech, Bahadrabad Industrial Area, Haridwar

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 82/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 82/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Jcit(Osd), Vs M/S Suryanchal Furnitech, Circle-111, F-104, Bahadrabad Industrial Dehradun-248001 Area, Haridwar-249402 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs3475L Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074074259(1) Dated 05.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

sufficient to explain deposit of cash (obtained from realization of sales) in bank account and, thus, cash deposits could not have been treated as undisclosed income of assessee. Further, Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur in case of [2025] 171 taxmann.com 229 (Jaipur - Trib.) Jitendra Kumar Tahilramani vs. Income-tax Officer

Ruby Jain, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Agra

In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows :

ITA 128/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshruby Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1/78A, Kale Ka Tall, Delhi Ward-1(1)(3), Gate, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aevpj4936P Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

book was not a book maintained by the assessee. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the amount, even if treated as undisclosed income of the assessee, could only be assessed in the financial year. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee holding that the said bank

Sandhya Singh, Rohit Nagar, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(3) Bhopal, Aaykar Bhawan, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 584/IND/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Gagan TiwariFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

illegal and arbitrary. The addition Sandhya Singh vs. ITO A.Y. 2013-14 was made without proper verification or credible evidence to substantiate the alleged undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer failed to consider the explanations and documentary evidence furnished by the Assessee, which sufficiently accounted for the cash credits. Hence ... been made without carrying out any meaningful verification and without bringing any credible evidence on record to establish that the credits represented undisclosed income of the assessee. The learned Counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the explanations and documentary evidence furnished by the assessee, and the learned

Purushotham Naidu Lekkala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1726/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 115BSection 132Section 153DSection 292CSection 4Section 65B

failed to explain the contents thereof. 10. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee admitted a sum of Rs. 5 Cr. as undisclosed income in the tax return and paid tax thereon. To the extent of Rs. 5 Cr., adjustment ought to have been allowed against the addition

Lekcon Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1725/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 115BSection 132Section 153DSection 292CSection 4Section 65B

failed to explain the contents thereof. 10. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee admitted a sum of Rs. 5 Cr. as undisclosed income in the tax return and paid tax thereon. To the extent of Rs. 5 Cr., adjustment ought to have been allowed against the addition

Swastik Vegetable Oil Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1105/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

constituted incriminating evidence revealing suppressed sale consideration. The AO also clarified that the details in the loose sheets provided specific and actionable information about undisclosed income, meeting the threshold for reopening the assessment u/s 153C. iii) Further, with respect to the discrepancies in satisfaction note pointed out by the appellant ... appellant's defence is found to be not sufficient and failed to refute the established facts. Therefore, the addition of Rs.31,42,000/- as undisclosed income, based on the suppression of sale consideration, is justified. Accordingly, the ground no.5 is dismissed. 6.5 The ground no.7 is general in nature

Swastik Vegetable Oil Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1104/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

constituted incriminating evidence revealing suppressed sale consideration. The AO also clarified that the details in the loose sheets provided specific and actionable information about undisclosed income, meeting the threshold for reopening the assessment u/s 153C. iii) Further, with respect to the discrepancies in satisfaction note pointed out by the appellant ... appellant's defence is found to be not sufficient and failed to refute the established facts. Therefore, the addition of Rs.31,42,000/- as undisclosed income, based on the suppression of sale consideration, is justified. Accordingly, the ground no.5 is dismissed. 6.5 The ground no.7 is general in nature

Swastik Vegetable Oil Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1103/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

constituted incriminating evidence revealing suppressed sale consideration. The AO also clarified that the details in the loose sheets provided specific and actionable information about undisclosed income, meeting the threshold for reopening the assessment u/s 153C. iii) Further, with respect to the discrepancies in satisfaction note pointed out by the appellant ... appellant's defence is found to be not sufficient and failed to refute the established facts. Therefore, the addition of Rs.31,42,000/- as undisclosed income, based on the suppression of sale consideration, is justified. Accordingly, the ground no.5 is dismissed. 6.5 The ground no.7 is general in nature

Swastik Vegetable Oil Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1102/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

constituted incriminating evidence revealing suppressed sale consideration. The AO also clarified that the details in the loose sheets provided specific and actionable information about undisclosed income, meeting the threshold for reopening the assessment u/s 153C. iii) Further, with respect to the discrepancies in satisfaction note pointed out by the appellant ... appellant's defence is found to be not sufficient and failed to refute the established facts. Therefore, the addition of Rs.31,42,000/- as undisclosed income, based on the suppression of sale consideration, is justified. Accordingly, the ground no.5 is dismissed. 6.5 The ground no.7 is general in nature

Swastik Vegetable Oil Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1101/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

constituted incriminating evidence revealing suppressed sale consideration. The AO also clarified that the details in the loose sheets provided specific and actionable information about undisclosed income, meeting the threshold for reopening the assessment u/s 153C. iii) Further, with respect to the discrepancies in satisfaction note pointed out by the appellant ... appellant's defence is found to be not sufficient and failed to refute the established facts. Therefore, the addition of Rs.31,42,000/- as undisclosed income, based on the suppression of sale consideration, is justified. Accordingly, the ground no.5 is dismissed. 6.5 The ground no.7 is general in nature

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Sitaram Jewellers, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 915/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri.T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 69C

made an addition under the head unaccounted business income by holding as under: “In light of the analysis of the J pack account, the undisclosed income for the AY 2020-21 is to be determined It will be reasonable to assume that the gold jewellery and other items that ... value. The Assessing Officer, in the present case, has not disputed the existence of business activity nor established that the entire purchase value represents undisclosed income of the assessee. 43. Although the ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Lalithaa Jewellery Mart

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Sitaram Jewellers, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 913/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri.T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 69C

made an addition under the head unaccounted business income by holding as under: “In light of the analysis of the J pack account, the undisclosed income for the AY 2020-21 is to be determined It will be reasonable to assume that the gold jewellery and other items that ... value. The Assessing Officer, in the present case, has not disputed the existence of business activity nor established that the entire purchase value represents undisclosed income of the assessee. 43. Although the ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Lalithaa Jewellery Mart

Lalit Kumar, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6304/DEL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

real facts of investments made in mutual funds, causing grave prejudice to the appellant. 5. That the addition of Rs. 72,990/- as undisclosed income towards interest received on deposits was erroneous, and failed to appreciate the nature of the transaction, compliance position, and the reasonableness of explanation that could

Jaiveer Nagar, Greater Noida vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4) Noida, Noida

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

ITA 6270/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Raghuraj Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

income of Rs. 1,63,24,384/- after making addition of Rs. 1,59,61,134/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of undisclosed income. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As no compliance was made to the multiple notices issued