C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT v. K. Jayakumar

296 ITR 348High Court#6046 most cited

What is C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT v. K. Jayakumar authority for?

A reference to the Director of Valuation under Section 132(9D) is invalid if it is made without rejecting the assessee's books of account, and a subsequent DVO report is also unsustainable if it's based on such an invalid reference.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Also referred to as

C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT · section 132(9D) · DVO report · rejection of books of accounts · invalid reference · unsustainable DVO report

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT v. K. Jayakumar

Shri Balram Krishan, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 728/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 579/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.582 To 584/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 To 2016-17 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 591/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Maxport India Pvt. Ltd. C/O Parikshit Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant, H. No. 3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh- 160019. स्था.लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaicm9120E अपीलाथ/Appellant बनाम प्रथीय/Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Centre Circle-1, Chandigarh. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.482 & 483/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vaishali Aggarwal C/O Parikshit Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant, H No. 3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh- 160022. स्था.लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaqpa4025M अपीलाथ/Appellant बनाम प्रथीय/Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Centre Circle-1, Chandigarh. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 846/Chd/2023

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(22)(e)

…cial pronouncements on this issue: : a) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010 (Chandigarh ITAT), b) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC), c) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and d) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC) 48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in report of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B was not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in Honest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464. 49. The Ld. Counsel for th…