← 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

Mehmud Ahmed Mian Ahmed Pothigara, Himatnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1810/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 148Section 234Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

National Faceless Assessment Unit, alleging that the money to take a Demand Draft given to M/s. Mehta Finance in cash is undisclosed income which is not correct. It is submitted that out of sales proceeds to give the payment to the purchaser, the appellant has taken the D.D. which ... genuine money. It is further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. A. O. could not find that the sources undisclosed income as stated in the Asst. Order. [2] The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi was grievously erred in confirming the levy of interest under various

Mehmud Ahmed Mian Ahmed Pothigara, Himatnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1809/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 148Section 234Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

National Faceless Assessment Unit, alleging that the money to take a Demand Draft given to M/s. Mehta Finance in cash is undisclosed income which is not correct. It is submitted that out of sales proceeds to give the payment to the purchaser, the appellant has taken the D.D. which ... genuine money. It is further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. A. O. could not find that the sources undisclosed income as stated in the Asst. Order. [2] The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi was grievously erred in confirming the levy of interest under various

Mehmud Ahmed Mian Ahmed Pothigara, Himatnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1808/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 148Section 234Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

National Faceless Assessment Unit, alleging that the money to take a Demand Draft given to M/s. Mehta Finance in cash is undisclosed income which is not correct. It is submitted that out of sales proceeds to give the payment to the purchaser, the appellant has taken the D.D. which ... genuine money. It is further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. A. O. could not find that the sources undisclosed income as stated in the Asst. Order. [2] The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi was grievously erred in confirming the levy of interest under various

Mehmud Ahmed Mian Ahmed Pothigara, Himatnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1807/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 148Section 234Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

National Faceless Assessment Unit, alleging that the money to take a Demand Draft given to M/s. Mehta Finance in cash is undisclosed income which is not correct. It is submitted that out of sales proceeds to give the payment to the purchaser, the appellant has taken the D.D. which ... genuine money. It is further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. A. O. could not find that the sources undisclosed income as stated in the Asst. Order. [2] The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi was grievously erred in confirming the levy of interest under various

Mahak Doshi Legal Heir of Late Aditya Doshi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

penny stock i.e. JMD Tele Film during the F.Y. 2010-11. Hence, I have reason to believe that Rs. 11,65,000/- is actually undisclosed income of assessee Shri Aditya Doshi during F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011- 12.” 4. The perusal of above reasons recorded reveals that ... showing bogus STCL/LTCG/Business Loss of Rs. 11,65,000/- and thereafter concluded that he has reason to believe that the said amount actually undisclosed income of the assessee. In our opinion, the reasons recorded are cryptic and there is no live link between the information received and the reasons

Debasis Mukhopadhyay, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 61(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2011/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Assessing Officer That He Never Executed Any Transactions In Multiple Commodity Exchange Through Broker Kalkut Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. & Even Stated That He Did Not Know About The Above Mentioned Broker. However, The Assessing Officer Made An Addition To The Income Of The Assessee Of ₹ 4,01,687/- As Undisclosed Income Which Was Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A).

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of ₹ 4,01,687/- as made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income from commodity transactions. 3. The facts in brief are that the AO reopened the case of the assessee under Section ... know about the above mentioned broker. However, the Assessing Officer made an addition to the income of the assessee of ₹ 4,01,687/- as undisclosed income which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. After hearing the rival contention and perusing the material on record, we find that

Bharat Solanki, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 6525/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar
Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

their premises, the said company has accepted the fact of the on-money received in cash and declared 8% of the net profit for undisclosed income. No independent evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate actual payment of cash by the assessee. There is no receipt, no diary

Bharat Solanki, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 6524/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

their premises, the said company has accepted the fact of the on-money received in cash and declared 8% of the net profit for undisclosed income. No independent evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate actual payment of cash by the assessee. There is no receipt, no diary

Bharat Solanki, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 6523/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

company has accepted the fact ITA Nos.6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 of the on-money received in cash and declared 8% of the net profit for undisclosed income. No independent evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate actual payment of cash by the assessee. There is no receipt, no diary

Sunita Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT-Central -1, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3541/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

assessment order, the ld. DR submitted, the A.O. has not at all discussed the significance of the seized materials and their impact on the undisclosed income at the hands of various persons, including the assessee. Thus, he submitted, ld. PCIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction

Sunita Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central)-1, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

assessment order, the ld. DR submitted, the A.O. has not at all discussed the significance of the seized materials and their impact on the undisclosed income at the hands of various persons, including the assessee. Thus, he submitted, ld. PCIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction

Sunita Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT(Central)-1, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3539/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

assessment order, the ld. DR submitted, the A.O. has not at all discussed the significance of the seized materials and their impact on the undisclosed income at the hands of various persons, including the assessee. Thus, he submitted, ld. PCIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction

Sunita Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT(Central)-1, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3451/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

assessment order, the ld. DR submitted, the A.O. has not at all discussed the significance of the seized materials and their impact on the undisclosed income at the hands of various persons, including the assessee. Thus, he submitted, ld. PCIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction

Lajayems Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 5(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawallajayems Jewellers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of G-28, Simla House, Nepean Sea Vs. Income Tax, Circle 5 (2) (2), Road, Mumbai - 400036 Mumbai - 400020. Pan – Aaacl 1458 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya - Advocate Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. D.R. Date Of Institution Of Appeal : 10.01.2025 Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23..12.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per : Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) Dated 13.12.2024 Vide Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya - AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, SR. D.R
Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 254(1)

referring relevant provision of PMGKY Scheme– 2016 submitted that as per Section 199-I of Taxation Law (Second Amendment Act) – 2016, the amount of undisclosed income declared in accordance with law under sub- section (1) of Section 199C shall not be included in the total income of declared ... referring certain provisions of PMGKY held that the provision of PMGKY specified that any person willing to declare 4 Lajayems Jewellers Private Limited their undisclosed income in the form of cash or deposit in the account with bank or post office or specified entity can opt for this scheme. Accordingly

ACIT Central Circle 1(4) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 5779/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

which establishes that the burden of proof may shift to the assessee once prima facie evidence is presented linking undisclosed income to the parties involved in financial arrangements?” 3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting proportional additions ... Proteins Ltd. (2017) 250 Таxman 22 (SC), where the Supreme Court upheld proportionate additions based on circumstantial evidence of undisclosed income, especially in sectors where cash dealings are prevalent?” 4. “Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law the Ld. CIT(A) overlooked the doctrine of preponderance of probability

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5403/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 159Section 35A

bogus activity and not as per its objectives for which trust was formed and commission income on the donation amount was taxed as undisclosed income and treating the trust as AOP. 6. In view of the above facts, it was seen that an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- debited ... bogus activity and not as per its objectives for which trust was formed and commission income on the donation amount was taxed as undisclosed income and treating the trust as AOP. In view of the above facts, it was seen that an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-, donation given

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5402/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 159Section 35A

bogus activity and not as per its objectives for which trust was formed and commission income on the donation amount was taxed as undisclosed income and treating the trust as AOP. 6. In view of the above facts, it was seen that an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- debited ... bogus activity and not as per its objectives for which trust was formed and commission income on the donation amount was taxed as undisclosed income and treating the trust as AOP. In view of the above facts, it was seen that an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-, donation given

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5401/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Shah
Section 147Section 148Section 35A

donation amount was taxed as commission income on the donation amount was taxed as commission income on the donation amount was taxed as undisclosed income and treating the trust as AOP. undisclosed income and treating the trust as AOP. 6. In view of the above facts, it was seen that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai vs. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4448/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

which establishes that the burden of proof may shift to the assessee once prima facie evidence is presented linking undisclosed income to the parties involved in financial arrangements?” 3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting proportional additions ... Proteins Ltd. (2017) 250 Taxman 22 (SC), where the Supreme Court upheld proportionate additions based on circumstantial evidence of undisclosed income, especially in sectors where cash dealings are prevalent?" 4. “Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law the Ld. CIT(A) overlooked the doctrine of preponderance of probability

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4445/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

which establishes that the burden of proof may shift to the assessee once prima facie evidence is presented linking undisclosed income to the parties involved in financial arrangements?” 3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting proportional additions ... Proteins Ltd. (2017) 250 Таxman 22 (SC), where the Supreme Court upheld proportionate additions based on circumstantial evidence of undisclosed income, especially in sectors where cash dealings are prevalent?” 4. “Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law the Ld. CIT(A) overlooked the doctrine of preponderance of probability