How many judgments cite CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal?

69 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal (338 ITR 485), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 154, Section 43CA, Section 50C, Section 56(2)(vii)(b), Section 69.

CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal

338 ITR 485High Court2011#1643 most cited

What is CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal authority for?

The revenue must prove that an assessee received extra consideration beyond the declared value; a Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report alone is insufficient to establish such receipt.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal · Puneet Sabharwal · DVO report · Departmental Valuation Officer · extra consideration · declared value · burden of proof · actual receipt · Section 50C · Section 43CA · Section 56(2)(vii)(b) · Section 69

Also reported as

16 Taxmann.com 320204 Taxmann 16

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 154 Section 43CA Section 50C Section 56(2)(vii)(b)Section 69 Section 143(2)Section 250

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(15a)section 142a section 17(2)(iiia)illegal payment section 44af section 131(1)(d)retention money section 150 surrender of income mat credit section 55a section 17(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal

Jayakrishna Nandamuri, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1793/HYD/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1793/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1996-97) Shri Jayakrishna Vs. Dy. Cit Nandamuri Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaxpn3135E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A. Harish राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Advocate A. HarishFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 69B

…issioner of Income Tax and Another (b) 419 ITR 132 (Guj) – Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Himanshu Chandulal Patel (c) 367 ITR 112 (Delhi) -Pepsi Foods P. Ltd Vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax (d) 290 ITR 245 (Delhi) –CIT Vs. Lalit Bhasin (e) 338 ITR 485 -CIT Vs. Puneet Sabharwal (f) KP Varghese Case Hon'ble Supreme Court in 131 ITR 597 (g) ITA No. 55/Hyd/2015 –G Mahesh Babu Vs. DCIT. 8. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has failed to satisfactorily explain the source of investment. It was c…

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO- Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 528/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485/16 taxmann.com 320/[2012] 204 Taxman 16 (Delhi) (Mag.). In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That…

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 527/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 526/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

Scott Edil Advance Research Laboratories and Education Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 857/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…

Scott Edil Advance Research Laboratories and Education Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 856/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…

Scott Edil Advance Research Laboratories and Education Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 845/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…

Scott Edil Advance Research Laboratories and Education Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 844/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…

Scott Edil Advance Research Laboratories and Education Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 843/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…

Scott Edil Pharmacia Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 833/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…

Scott Edil Pharmacia Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 832/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…

Scott Edil Pharmacia Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 829/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…

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

ITA 732/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…

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

ITA 731/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…

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

ITA 730/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 2

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…

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

ITA 729/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…

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)

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…

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

ITA 726/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Section 153A

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…

Maxport India Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 583/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…

Maxport India Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 582/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…s submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485. In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the a…