← 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

M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas & Co., Surat vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 185/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 69C

which, sum of Rs.5.27 crores was held to be expenditure not related to the business of the assessee and considered as undisclosed income for the block period. In the reassessment proceedings under section 148, very same amount was added on a protective basis. When the Assessing Officer made aforesaid addition

Leena K. Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 151/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Surji ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

view, Omkar Realtors accepted the ownership of cash as well as the jewellery purchased from such cash. Taking the disclosures made by Omkar Realtors undisclosed income of Omkar Realtors was determined by the Settlement Commission which has been brought to tax. It is not the case of Revenue that

Sh. Arashpreet Singh. S/O.Late.Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax .Circle-II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 64/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) has discarded retraction letter filed by the assessee only on the basis of admission of undisclosed income recorded in the statement u/s.132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer as well as learned ... argued that if at all document is to be relied upon, then only peak credit recorded in the document should be considered as undisclosed income of the assessee. The peak credit theory is not a foreign to the income-tax proceedings. Various courts and tribunals time and again are batting

Sh. Arashpreet Singh S/O. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 63/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) has discarded retraction letter filed by the assessee only on the basis of admission of undisclosed income recorded in the statement u/s.132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer as well as learned ... argued that if at all document is to be relied upon, then only peak credit recorded in the document should be considered as undisclosed income of the assessee. The peak credit theory is not a foreign to the income-tax proceedings. Various courts and tribunals time and again are batting

Sh. Arashpreet Singh S/O. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Cercle- II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 62/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) has discarded retraction letter filed by the assessee only on the basis of admission of undisclosed income recorded in the statement u/s.132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer as well as learned ... argued that if at all document is to be relied upon, then only peak credit recorded in the document should be considered as undisclosed income of the assessee. The peak credit theory is not a foreign to the income-tax proceedings. Various courts and tribunals time and again are batting

Sh. Arspreet Singh . S/O. Late. Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle .II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 61/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) has discarded retraction letter filed by the assessee only on the basis of admission of undisclosed income recorded in the statement u/s.132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer as well as learned ... argued that if at all document is to be relied upon, then only peak credit recorded in the document should be considered as undisclosed income of the assessee. The peak credit theory is not a foreign to the income-tax proceedings. Various courts and tribunals time and again are batting

Sh. Arashpreet Singh S/O Late Sh. Gurmail Singh, Shri Mukatsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 60/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) has discarded retraction letter filed by the assessee only on the basis of admission of undisclosed income recorded in the statement u/s.132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer as well as learned ... argued that if at all document is to be relied upon, then only peak credit recorded in the document should be considered as undisclosed income of the assessee. The peak credit theory is not a foreign to the income-tax proceedings. Various courts and tribunals time and again are batting

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Pawan Kansal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 694/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Supriya Mehta, C. A. &
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

assessment in the section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material found during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original

Late. Sh. Gurmail Singh S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Sri Mukatsar vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 59/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) has discarded retraction letter filed by the assessee only on the basis of admission of undisclosed income recorded in the statement u/s.132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer as well as learned ... argued that if at all document is to be relied upon, then only peak credit recorded in the document should be considered as undisclosed income of the assessee. The peak credit theory is not a foreign to the income-tax proceedings. Various courts and tribunals time and again are batting

Late. Sh. Gurmail. Singh. S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Sri Mukatsar vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 58/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) has discarded retraction letter filed by the assessee only on the basis of admission of undisclosed income recorded in the statement u/s.132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer as well as learned ... argued that if at all document is to be relied upon, then only peak credit recorded in the document should be considered as undisclosed income of the assessee. The peak credit theory is not a foreign to the income-tax proceedings. Various courts and tribunals time and again are batting

Late. Sh. Gurmail Singh.S/O. Late Sh. Lal Singh, Sri Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 57/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) has discarded retraction letter filed by the assessee only on the basis of admission of undisclosed income recorded in the statement u/s.132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer as well as learned ... argued that if at all document is to be relied upon, then only peak credit recorded in the document should be considered as undisclosed income of the assessee. The peak credit theory is not a foreign to the income-tax proceedings. Various courts and tribunals time and again are batting

Late. Sh. Gurmail. Singh S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Shri Mukat Sar vs. Dy. Commissioner of 9Income Tax. Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 56/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) has discarded retraction letter filed by the assessee only on the basis of admission of undisclosed income recorded in the statement u/s.132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer as well as learned ... argued that if at all document is to be relied upon, then only peak credit recorded in the document should be considered as undisclosed income of the assessee. The peak credit theory is not a foreign to the income-tax proceedings. Various courts and tribunals time and again are batting

Late. Sh. Gumail Singh . S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 55/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) has discarded retraction letter filed by the assessee only on the basis of admission of undisclosed income recorded in the statement u/s.132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer as well as learned ... argued that if at all document is to be relied upon, then only peak credit recorded in the document should be considered as undisclosed income of the assessee. The peak credit theory is not a foreign to the income-tax proceedings. Various courts and tribunals time and again are batting

Ashok Kumar, Sikar vs. ITO Ward 1, Sikar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 108/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 66,21,551/- on account of undisclosed income u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the income of the appellant on this count is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly

Ashok Kumar, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward 1, Sikar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 107/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 66,21,551/- on account of undisclosed income u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the income of the appellant on this count is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly

Mr Arun Manohar Pathak, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Palghar Circle Palghar Income Tax Office, Palghar

ITA 489/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Jignesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

milk and that the Appellant was not permitted to receive SBNs and therefore, the cash deposited by the Appellant was nothing but Appellants own undisclosed income. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before the CIT(A) 4. and filed following documents/details and filed written submission dated 25.10.2021 and 2.11.2022. However ... merely holding that the Appellant could not have received SBNs as legal tender and therefore, cash deposited by the Appellant was undisclosed income without verifying the documents and testing the explanation offered by the Appellant by examining the actual purchase/sale of milk. Thus, the averments made by the Appellant, which

DCIT C.C. 3(2) `, Mumbai vs. M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2216/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 153ASection 69C

income of the assessee. Accordingly, we agree with the view taken by Ld CIT(A) that only the net amount should be considered as undisclosed income. Accordingly, Ld CIT(A) was justified in granting netting off benefit against the three persons mentioned in the table above. 19 Viraj Profiles Limited

DCIT C.C. 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2215/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 153ASection 69C

income of the assessee. Accordingly, we agree with the view taken by Ld CIT(A) that only the net amount should be considered as undisclosed income. Accordingly, Ld CIT(A) was justified in granting netting off benefit against the three persons mentioned in the table above. 19 Viraj Profiles Limited

M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent . Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1777/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 153ASection 69C

income of the assessee. Accordingly, we agree with the view taken by Ld CIT(A) that only the net amount should be considered as undisclosed income. Accordingly, Ld CIT(A) was justified in granting netting off benefit against the three persons mentioned in the table above. 19 Viraj Profiles Limited

M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Tax Cent. Circle-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 153ASection 69C

income of the assessee. Accordingly, we agree with the view taken by Ld CIT(A) that only the net amount should be considered as undisclosed income. Accordingly, Ld CIT(A) was justified in granting netting off benefit against the three persons mentioned in the table above. 19 Viraj Profiles Limited