← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle-2), Raipur vs. Shri Vikas Kumar Fatehramka, Pandri

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 77/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Assistant Commissioner – Shri Vikas Kumar Fatehramka Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Vs Prop. Goyal Sales, Central Circle -2, Raipur. Behind Mata Garage, Near Jai Bhole Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Aadpf 2412 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma. Sr. निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr Shri Ravi Agrawal, Ca सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2023

For Appellant: DR Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma. Sr
Section 115Section 115BSection 133A

with provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, showing his income from other sources, has shifted its stand, submitted a revised computation moving the undisclosed income surrendered under the head of income “Income from other sources” to “Income from Business and Profession”, with a plea that the impugned excess stock ... assessee has shown his inability to make any clarification. Finally, the assessee has offered the said sum of Rs.2,01,25,976/- as his undisclosed income other than the regular income for the AY 2017-18. It was the submission of the Ld.Sr. DR that, in absence of any explanation

Jiyyana Venkatrayudu, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 138/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.138/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jiyyana Venkatrayudu, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Kakinada. Income Tax, Pan: Axppj 2351 K Circle-1, Kakinada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 10/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115BSection 144Section 197Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 54FSection 68

r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. However, the Ld. AO also issued a show cause notice dated 2/12/2019 as to why the undisclosed income declared in IDS, 2016 should not be taxed and the assessment be completed U/s. 144 of the Act? In response, the assessee filed its reply through ITBA ... submitted that the assessee has filed a declaration under IDS-2016 on 28/09/2016 and in Annexure to Form-1 “Statement of undisclosed income” the assessee has declared an amount of Rs. 50,59,580/- as income from capital gains. Further, the assessee could not pay the taxes as admitted

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Tirumala Steel Enterprises, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 73/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.73/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Tirumala Steel Enterprises, Tax, Circle-1(1), 26-8-62, Rajaram Mohan Roy Visakhapatnam. Road, Velampeta, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aalfs 6152 N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 22/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.73/Viz/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Tirumala Steel Enterprises, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 26-8-62, Rajaram Mohan Roy Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Road, Velampeta, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aalfs 6152 N (Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Therefore, the Ld. AO opined that the said cash of Rs. 4,65,27,000/- is an unaccounted / 4 undisclosed income or cash during the FY 2016-17. The Ld. AO however noticed that the assessee declared only the amount of Rs.3,65,00,000/- while filing the return ... offered for assessment years prior to AY 2017-18. The Ld. AO therefore issued a show cause notice to explain as to why the undisclosed income of Rs. 4,65,27,000/- which was offered during the survey proceedings and admitted in the sworn statement, should not be treated