BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

160 results for “TDS”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai712Delhi642Chennai272Kolkata256Bangalore174Hyderabad170Jaipur160Ahmedabad99Cochin87Chandigarh49Indore44Rajkot35Nagpur31Surat29Pune26Guwahati24Lucknow21Agra20Karnataka20Cuttack17Raipur17Jodhpur16Allahabad16Amritsar16Patna13Dehradun9Visakhapatnam8Varanasi7Ranchi5Jabalpur4Telangana4Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1Calcutta1Kerala1Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income80Section 143(3)70Section 14858Section 14741Section 6834Section 142(1)32Section 153A30Section 271(1)(c)30Section 14428Disallowance

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 1270/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 68

undisclosed income of the assessee.\nConclusion:\nI have considered the reply of the appellant and the finding of the AO in\nthe assessment order. In this regard my findings are as under.\n1. In the reply, the appellant has submitted that in exhibit -5 at page no.\n16,17,19 & 20 and exhibit -4 page no. 7 & 8 are claimed

Showing 1–20 of 160 · Page 1 of 8

...
22
Penalty21
Undisclosed Income21

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 928/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

undisclosed\nincome of the Private Limited company and he further reconfirmed\nin the statement recorded in the second statement recorded u/s 131\nof the IT Act, 1961. Thereafter, Shri Banna Lal Jat informed that\nthe said cash belongs to his proprietorship concern. In applicant's\ncase as evident from the assessment order that its facts are all\ntogether different

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN URBAN DRINKING WATER SEWERAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPN LIMITED, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 597/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agrarwal ( C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 145Section 199Section 25

undisclosed interest earned on FDRs and not appreciating the fact that as the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted on the said interest as per section 199 of the IT Act, such income

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

undisclosed India Developers income of Rs. Pvt. Ltd. dt. 30,00,31,216/- in the 04/09/2013 hands of the company 2. 2,50,00,000/- Other discrepancies Q. No. 13 of Shri Vijay Kumar Jain has statements of also furnished affidavit Shri Vijay Jain dated 18/09/2013 for director of M/s confirming the admission JKD Pearl India of on-money

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

ITA 1271/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 68

undisclosed income of the assessee.\nConclusion:\nI have considered the reply of the appellant and the finding of the AO in\nthe assessment order. In this regard my findings are as under.\n1. In the reply, the appellant has submitted that in exhibit -5 at page no.\n16,17,19 & 20 and exhibit -4 page no. 7 & 8 are claimed

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 968/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahenda Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

income has suffered TDS it cannot be said to be undisclosed income of the assessee. We have gone through the decisions

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 59/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Income-tax Act, 1961 1.1 As per the explicit and mandatory provisions enshrined under Section 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), any Assessing Officer (“AO”) who is below Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT the rank of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (“JCIT”) is required to obtain prior approval u/s 153D by forwarding the draft assessment order

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 673/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Income-tax Act, 1961 1.1 As per the explicit and mandatory provisions enshrined under Section 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), any Assessing Officer (“AO”) who is below Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT the rank of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (“JCIT”) is required to obtain prior approval u/s 153D by forwarding the draft assessment order

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 61/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Income-tax Act, 1961 1.1 As per the explicit and mandatory provisions enshrined under Section 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), any Assessing Officer (“AO”) who is below Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT the rank of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (“JCIT”) is required to obtain prior approval u/s 153D by forwarding the draft assessment order

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 672/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Income-tax Act, 1961 1.1 As per the explicit and mandatory provisions enshrined under Section 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), any Assessing Officer (“AO”) who is below Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT the rank of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (“JCIT”) is required to obtain prior approval u/s 153D by forwarding the draft assessment order

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 57/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Income-tax Act, 1961 1.1 As per the explicit and mandatory provisions enshrined under Section 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), any Assessing Officer (“AO”) who is below Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT the rank of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (“JCIT”) is required to obtain prior approval u/s 153D by forwarding the draft assessment order

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 572/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr D.R
Section 131(1)Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

TDS as discussed in Rs. 73 para no. 7 Add:- Addition as discussed in para no. 8 Rs. 1,18,83,333 Assessed total income Rs. 1,26,67,392 R/o Rs. 1,26,67,390/- Sh. Rajendra Agarwal On challenge to the said assessment order by the assessee, byway of appeal, Learned CIT(A) upheld the assessment made

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 573/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr D.R
Section 131(1)Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

TDS as discussed in Rs. 73 para no. 7 Add:- Addition as discussed in para no. 8 Rs. 1,18,83,333 Assessed total income Rs. 1,26,67,392 R/o Rs. 1,26,67,390/- Sh. Rajendra Agarwal On challenge to the said assessment order by the assessee, byway of appeal, Learned CIT(A) upheld the assessment made

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 559/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr D.R
Section 131(1)Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

TDS as discussed in Rs. 73 para no. 7 Add:- Addition as discussed in para no. 8 Rs. 1,18,83,333 Assessed total income Rs. 1,26,67,392 R/o Rs. 1,26,67,390/- Sh. Rajendra Agarwal On challenge to the said assessment order by the assessee, byway of appeal, Learned CIT(A) upheld the assessment made

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 558/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr D.R
Section 131(1)Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

TDS as discussed in Rs. 73 para no. 7 Add:- Addition as discussed in para no. 8 Rs. 1,18,83,333 Assessed total income Rs. 1,26,67,392 R/o Rs. 1,26,67,390/- Sh. Rajendra Agarwal On challenge to the said assessment order by the assessee, byway of appeal, Learned CIT(A) upheld the assessment made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAKESH GOEL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1204/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

undisclosed income.\nOn perusal of record, it is observed that appellant had considered the excess\nstock of Rs.37,03,747/- found in survey while finalizing the books of account for\nthe year. The stock of Rs.37,03,747/- was duly recorded in the regular books of\naccount drawn up for the year ended on 31.03.2013 by including the same

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 162/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

undisclosed sources of income, on the basis of excel sheets in a pen drive which was found and seized from the possession of Shri Kailash Chand Khandelwal, who is one of the employee of the Maverick Group, without appreciating the true nature of entries, thus the addition so upheld deserve to be deleted. 1.1 That

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 156/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

undisclosed sources of income, on the basis of excel sheets in a pen drive which was found and seized from the possession of Shri Kailash Chand Khandelwal, who is one of the employee of the Maverick Group, without appreciating the true nature of entries, thus the addition so upheld deserve to be deleted. 1.1 That

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 161/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

undisclosed sources of income, on the basis of excel sheets in a pen drive which was found and seized from the possession of Shri Kailash Chand Khandelwal, who is one of the employee of the Maverick Group, without appreciating the true nature of entries, thus the addition so upheld deserve to be deleted. 1.1 That

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 164/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

undisclosed sources of income, on the basis of excel sheets in a pen drive which was found and seized from the possession of Shri Kailash Chand Khandelwal, who is one of the employee of the Maverick Group, without appreciating the true nature of entries, thus the addition so upheld deserve to be deleted. 1.1 That