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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai712Delhi642Chennai272Kolkata256Bangalore174Hyderabad170Jaipur160Ahmedabad99Cochin87Chandigarh49Indore44Rajkot35Nagpur31Surat29Pune26Guwahati24Lucknow21Agra20Karnataka20Cuttack17Raipur17Jodhpur16Allahabad16Amritsar16Patna13Dehradun9Visakhapatnam8Varanasi7Ranchi5Jabalpur4Telangana4Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1Calcutta1Kerala1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 1489Section 1474Addition to Income4Section 2503Section 143(3)3Section 683Section 1392Section 133A2Section 143(2)2Unexplained Cash Credit

ACIT,C.C.-1, RANCHI vs. M/S KOIRA ORES PRIVATE LIMITED, GIRIDIH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 31/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

TDS u/s,194A or 194J was deducted .Accordingly, the AO show-caused the appellant whether the said amount was included in the ROI. As the assessee failed to file any submission / details the AO treated the same as undisclosed business income

RAM KUMAR,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

2
Reassessment2
Survey u/s 133A2

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

ITA 189/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No. 189/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Ram Kumar,…………………………………………..Appellant C/O. Ram Bilash Prasad Gupta, Gayatri Niwas, Ekta Colony, Majhi Tola, Adityapur, Jamshedpur-831013, Jharkhand [Pan:Anspk0996Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle, Office Road, Jamshedpur-831001, Jharkhand Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 194J

TDS was deducted. Professional receipts were Rs.62,94,821/- for AY 2018-19 and from the ITR filed, it was shown gross receipts from profession to the tune of Rs.52,42,559/- . The assessee was requested to explain why the difference of Rs.10,52,262/- should not be treated as undisclosed income

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), HAZARIBAG vs. SANJAY KUMAR UPADHYAY, HAZARIBAG

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 94/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

undisclosed turnover, the Ld.CIT (A) Hazaribag erred in deleting the addition. The Ld.CIT (A) Hazaribag, relied upon the evidence put forwarded by the assessee before him in this regard and did not take into account the material evidence brought on the record by the Assessing officer. 2. That regarding the addition made to the tune

BADRINATH SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,ADITYAPUR, WEST SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1 JSR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/RAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

undisclosed stock\n1.4.1 That the sole ground for making addition by the assessing officer\nwith respect to the stock is change in stock turnover ratio.\n1.4.2 That moreover, it is humbly submitted that such practice of making\naddition on the basis of low Stock Turnover Ratio is highly unusual\nand illogical, considering the fact that there is no dispute

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR vs. BENKO TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 436/RAN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Cc, Jamshedpur…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, Block D, White House, Park Stree, Wb – 700016. [Pan: Aabcb1888R] Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Dated 25.09.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139 Of The Act Declaring A Total Income As Nil. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 28.11.2017 Determining The Total Income At ₹9,88,28,406. Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Relating To Alleged Use Of Stock Exchange Platform (Bse/Nse) For Generating Fictitious Long-Term/Short-Term Capital Gains Through Certain Scripts & Alleged Accommodation Entries, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons Under Section 147 Of The Act. A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued The Assessee Filed Its Return Declaring The Same Income

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

undisclosed commission were paid to the broker over and above the STT charges & other charges paid by the assessee to the brokers which is shown in the ledger of the assessee company as well as in the contract notes issued by the brokers. Hence, it is clear that the AO has failed to provide any evidence showing the payment