ACIT v. M/s 27 Khemka Group VatikaGreenfield (P) Ltd.

315 ITR 113Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#10511 most cited

What is ACIT v. M/s 27 Khemka Group VatikaGreenfield (P) Ltd. authority for?

Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, and deeming provisions cannot extend beyond their legislative scope. Presumptions under Section 292C are limited to the correctness of documents found during a search or survey and do not automatically deem those documents as the assessee's income without further evidence.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. 27 Khemka Group VatikaGreenfield · 315 ITR 113 · Section 292C · presumption · search · survey · income · undisclosed income · seized documents · loan · capital receipt

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 132Section 132(4)Section 292CSection 69Section 131(1A)Section 132(4A)Section 65B

Issues it is cited on

section 38assistant directorsection 132(4a)section 91section 292binterest under section 234asection 65bsection 65interest u/s 234asection 292section 127child

Judgments citing ACIT v. M/s 27 Khemka Group VatikaGreenfield (P) Ltd.

DCIT, Central Circle-6, Third Floor vs. Rama Shankar Khemka, Ganesh Bazar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…see company which was proposed to expended by vendor towards refurbishment of property but was never paid or incurred by the assessee company. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of ACIT v. M/s 27 Khemka Group VatikaGreenfield (P) Ltd. reported in 315 ITR 113 (AT) wherein it has been held as under: 21. A conjoint reading of the above decisions suggests that taxing statutes have to be interpreted strictly. In the deeming provision what is prescribed is to be deemed and deeming provision cannot be extended beyond the legislative scope. The presumption as envisaged in s. 2920 is limited to the correctnes…

DCIT, Central Circle-6, Third Floor vs. Rajesh Rani Khemka, Ganesh Bazar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…see company which was proposed to expended by vendor towards refurbishment of property but was never paid or incurred by the assessee company. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of ACIT v. M/s 27 Khemka Group VatikaGreenfield (P) Ltd. reported in 315 ITR 113 (AT) wherein it has been held as under: 21. A conjoint reading of the above decisions suggests that taxing statutes have to be interpreted strictly. In the deeming provision what is prescribed is to be deemed and deeming provision cannot be extended beyond the legislative scope. The presumption as envisaged in s. 2920 is limited to the correctnes…

DCIT, Central Circle-6, Income Tax Department vs. Payal Khemka, K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…see company which was proposed to expended by vendor towards refurbishment of property but was never paid or incurred by the assessee company. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of ACIT v. M/s 27 Khemka Group VatikaGreenfield (P) Ltd. reported in 315 ITR 113 (AT) wherein it has been held as under: 21. A conjoint reading of the above decisions suggests that taxing statutes have to be interpreted strictly. In the deeming provision what is prescribed is to be deemed and deeming provision cannot be extended beyond the legislative scope. The presumption as envisaged in s. 2920 is limited to the correctnes…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

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

ITA 6473/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 148Section 292B

…d documents show the amount as loans, therefore, the same cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee as loan is a capital receipt. 23. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Vatika Greenfield Pvt Ltd 315 ITR 113 and also of the Pune Bench in 71 ITD 245. The ld. counsel for the assessee continued by saying that provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in the case of search assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act. 24. Continuing his arguments in reference to Revenue’s appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that in the earlier years, the Tribu…

Mr. Vinod Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6259/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 148Section 292B

…d documents show the amount as loans, therefore, the same cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee as loan is a capital receipt. 23. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Vatika Greenfield Pvt Ltd 315 ITR 113 and also of the Pune Bench in 71 ITD 245. The ld. counsel for the assessee continued by saying that provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in the case of search assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act. 24. Continuing his arguments in reference to Revenue’s appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that in the earlier years, the Tribu…

Vinod Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4055/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 148Section 292B

…d documents show the amount as loans, therefore, the same cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee as loan is a capital receipt. 23. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Vatika Greenfield Pvt Ltd 315 ITR 113 and also of the Pune Bench in 71 ITD 245. The ld. counsel for the assessee continued by saying that provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in the case of search assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act. 24. Continuing his arguments in reference to Revenue’s appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that in the earlier years, the Tribu…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. S. K. Gupta, New Delhi

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

ITA 3991/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 148Section 292B

…d documents show the amount as loans, therefore, the same cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee as loan is a capital receipt. 23. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Vatika Greenfield Pvt Ltd 315 ITR 113 and also of the Pune Bench in 71 ITD 245. The ld. counsel for the assessee continued by saying that provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in the case of search assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act. 24. Continuing his arguments in reference to Revenue’s appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that in the earlier years, the Tribu…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Delhi

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

ITA 3989/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 148Section 292B

…d documents show the amount as loans, therefore, the same cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee as loan is a capital receipt. 23. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Vatika Greenfield Pvt Ltd 315 ITR 113 and also of the Pune Bench in 71 ITD 245. The ld. counsel for the assessee continued by saying that provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in the case of search assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act. 24. Continuing his arguments in reference to Revenue’s appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that in the earlier years, the Tribu…

S.K. Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3887/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 148Section 292B

…d documents show the amount as loans, therefore, the same cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee as loan is a capital receipt. 23. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Vatika Greenfield Pvt Ltd 315 ITR 113 and also of the Pune Bench in 71 ITD 245. The ld. counsel for the assessee continued by saying that provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in the case of search assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act. 24. Continuing his arguments in reference to Revenue’s appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that in the earlier years, the Tribu…

Sh. S.K. Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3107/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 148Section 292B

…d documents show the amount as loans, therefore, the same cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee as loan is a capital receipt. 23. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Vatika Greenfield Pvt Ltd 315 ITR 113 and also of the Pune Bench in 71 ITD 245. The ld. counsel for the assessee continued by saying that provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in the case of search assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act. 24. Continuing his arguments in reference to Revenue’s appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that in the earlier years, the Tribu…

ACIT v. M/s 27 Khemka Group VatikaGreenfield (P) Ltd. (315 ITR 113) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax