How many judgments cite CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons.?

97 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons. (63 ITR 411), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 147, Section 153A, Section 35D, Section 40(a)(i).

CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons.

63 ITR 411Supreme Court of India1967#1169 most cited

What is CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons. authority for?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not required to repeat its reasons when it fully agrees with the conclusions of the lower appellate authority and has no further grounds to add, even as the final fact-finding body.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons · 63 ITR 411 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · ITAT duty to record reasons · reasons for findings · agreement with CIT(A) · Appellate Assistant Commissioner · final fact-finding authority

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132 Section 147 Section 153A Section 35D Section 40(a)(i)Section 148 Section 80HHC

Issues it is cited on

section 35d prohibited by law retraction of statement colourable device statement under section 132(4)written down value mli section 30 short term capital gains block of assets short term capital gain business connection

Judgments citing CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons.

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21 cuke Sunil Kumar Agarwal ACIT, Vs. 395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside Central Circle-2, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k…

ACIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi vs. Jagat Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2961/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: S/Shri. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Ms.RajinderKaur,CIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

…to have recorded its own findings rather than merely confirming the findings of the CIT (Appeals). However, the learned counsel for the respondent/ assessee drew our attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons : (1966) 63 ITR 411 (SC), wherein, on a similar point having been raised, the Supreme Court observed as under: - “The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons, when t…

Selvaraj Charitable Trust, Madurai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2099/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2099/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Selvaraj Charitable Trust, Income Tax Officer, No.15B, Thirumangalam Main Road, Exemptions Ward, Thirunagar, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 006. [Pan: Aajts7132G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS

Section 143(1)

Bha Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5208/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…ITA No.5208/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:-5208/Del/2018 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) M/s. BHA Associates Private Asst. Commissioner of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, No.40 / 43, 2nd Floor, C.R. Park, Central Circle-29, Delhi-110017 Delhi PAN No:AABCB4540L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : None Department by: Ms.Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal filed by the Assessee is di…

Hindustan Commart P.Ltd, Muzaffarnagar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3305/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.DR

…ITA No.3305/ Del / 2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:-3305/Del/2018 (Assessment Year- 2013-14) M/s. Hindustan Commart ACIT Private Limited, Vs. Circle-1, 10-A, New Mandi, Muzaffar Muzaffarnagar, Nagar, Delhi UP-251001. PAN No:AACCH3068C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : None Department by: Ms.Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the or…

B D R Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2451/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 147

…to have recorded its own findings rather than merely confirming the findings of the CIT (Appeals). However, the learned counsel for the respondent/ assessee drew our attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons : (1966) 63 ITR 411 (SC), wherein, on a similar point having been raised, the Supreme Court observed as under: - “The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed Page 3 of 5 question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record re…

Mahendra Singh Ratnawat, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 223/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 44ASection 69A

…CIT (TDS) JP (2017) 87 taxmann.com 184 (Rajasthan) and CIT Vs Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192(SC) – The Hon'ble Court held that if, two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. (e) CIT Vs K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC) (f) DCIT Vs Ratan Corpn (2005) 197 CTR 536 (Gujarat), (g) ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer Vs. Shri Devendra Kumar Choudhary 2-S-10 to 2-S-18, Basant Vihar, Bhilwara, ITA No. 828/JP/16 (h) CIT Vs Ashok Kumar Soni (2007) 291, ITR, 172 (Raj.) (i) KailashbenManharlal Chokshi Vs CIT (2008) 174 Taxman 466 (Gujarat) (j) CIT, Central –II, Mumbai Vs Ompra…

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ome Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. RatanCorpn., (2005) 197 CTR 536 (Gujarat); The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer Vs. ShriDevendra Kumar Choudhary, 2-S-10 to 2-S-18, BasantVihar, Bhilwara, ITA No. 828/JP/16, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Soni, (2007) 291, ITR, 172 (Raj.), KailashbenManharlal Choksh…

Amit Kumar Sen, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Circle 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 388/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.388/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Amit Kumar Sen, Vs Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly Sahapur, Tarakeswar, Hooghly (Wb)-712410 Pan No. :Aavfs 6967 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1071619653(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ld. Ars Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Was Specifically Asked To Point Out How The Assessee Has Responded To The Chart Issued By The Assessing Officer, Which Is Recorded In Page 3 Of The Assessment Order. Other Than Referring To Various Replies That Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Which Were Uploaded From The Portal, No Specific Reply To The Said Para Was Pointed Out. Admittedly, The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Dislodge The Said Chart.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra and Shri Trideep Nayak, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/CIT-Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…P rate initiated by the Ld. Assessing Officer on assessment is unjustified, where audited accounts & Ledger is furnished during the course of assessment. 1. Presumptive additions without evidence are unsustainable: c Case Law: CIT v. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons (1967)63 ITR 411 (SC) The • Supreme Court held that mere suspicion cannot form the basis of an addition. Any addition must be supported by concrete evidence, and the absence of such evidence renders the assessment invalid. In this case, the Ld. Assessing Officer presumed unaccounted sales without proving the actual sale or purchase of excess stock, making the addi…

Sanjivani Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahkari Pat Sanstha, Bhandara vs. ITO Ward-2, Bhandara

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 198/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chandraprakash BhutadaFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha

Section 250Section 292BSection 4(1)Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

…opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money... may be deemed to be the income of the assessee. Here, the explanation was accepted as substantially correct prohibiting deeming provisions absent specific evidence. CIT v. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons [1967] 63 ITR 411 (SC) - The Supreme Court held that once credible evidence explains cash credits, the AO cannot deem them income without cogent rebuttal. 3. Disregard of Unassailable Evidence of Genuineness: The Appellant provided comprehensive evidence cash books, bank statements, receipt vouchers, and CA verification proving the Rs. 1,45,72,081 as genuine busine…

Bhujbal Brothers Construction Company, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2137/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay &

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 43C

…king into consideration the business conditions of the assessee and compare it from the profits disclosed by the assessee in the similar line of businesses. In this connection, reference can be made to the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, 63 ITR 411 (SC); (ii) (Dabros Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT. 108 ITR 424 (Cal.); (iii) Badrinath Agarwal vs. CIT, 65 ITR 242 (All.); and, (iv) Shri Venkteshwar Sugar Mills vs. CIT, 341 ITR 588 (AII.). 13. it is also settled position of law that the Assessing Officer cannot rely on the same books of accounts which are rejected for the purpose of making any…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Bhujbal Brothers Construction Company, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2119/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay &

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 43C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Creative Gems and Jewellery Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal inITA 2821/MUM/2024

ITA 2821/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms.AasifaKhan,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 68

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 2053/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Creative Gems and v/s. Assistant Commissioner Jewellery Limited, A-327, of Income Tax, Circle – बनाम Virwani Industrial Estate, 3rd 4(1)(1), Room No.678, Floor, Western Express Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Highway, Goregaon East, Road, Churchgate, Mumbai Mumbai-400063, Maharashtra - 400 020, Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACCC6889Q .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद" ITA 2821/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner…

Creative Gems and Jewellery Limited, Goregaon East Mumbai vs. Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, Revenue’s appeal inITA 2821/MUM/2024

ITA 2053/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms.AasifaKhan,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 68