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.

69

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 154Section 43CASection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)(b)Section 69Section 143(2)Section 250
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(15a)section 142asection 17(2)(iiia)illegal paymentsection 44afsection 131(1)(d)retention moneysection 150surrender of incomemat creditsection 55asection 17(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal

R.S. Bedi

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

ITA/146/2003HC Delhi28 Oct 2015
Section 131Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…y over and above what is stated in the sale deed, an addition under Section 69B of the Act “solely on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer” cannot be sustained. The decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del) is an authority to the above legal position. Another decision which holds likewise is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lahsa Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 671 (Del). In other words, the report of the DVO cannot form the sole basis to sustain addition under Section 69B of the Act. It can at best corroborate the other material that…

R.S. Bedi

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

ITA/144/2003HC Delhi28 Oct 2015
Section 131Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…y over and above what is stated in the sale deed, an addition under Section 69B of the Act “solely on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer” cannot be sustained. The decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del) is an authority to the above legal position. Another decision which holds likewise is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lahsa Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 671 (Del). In other words, the report of the DVO cannot form the sole basis to sustain addition under Section 69B of the Act. It can at best corroborate the other material that…

R.S. Bedi

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

ITA/145/2003HC Delhi28 Oct 2015
Section 131Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…y over and above what is stated in the sale deed, an addition under Section 69B of the Act “solely on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer” cannot be sustained. The decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del) is an authority to the above legal position. Another decision which holds likewise is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lahsa Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 671 (Del). In other words, the report of the DVO cannot form the sole basis to sustain addition under Section 69B of the Act. It can at best corroborate the other material that…

M.S. Bedi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

ITA - 145/2003HC Delhi28 Oct 2015
Section 131Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…y over and above what is stated in the sale deed, an addition under Section 69B of the Act “solely on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer” cannot be sustained. The decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del) is an authority to the above legal position. Another decision which holds likewise is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lahsa Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 671 (Del). In other words, the report of the DVO cannot form the sole basis to sustain addition under Section 69B of the Act. It can at best corroborate the other material that…

H.S. Bedi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

ITA - 146/2003HC Delhi28 Oct 2015
Section 131Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…y over and above what is stated in the sale deed, an addition under Section 69B of the Act “solely on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer” cannot be sustained. The decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del) is an authority to the above legal position. Another decision which holds likewise is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lahsa Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 671 (Del). In other words, the report of the DVO cannot form the sole basis to sustain addition under Section 69B of the Act. It can at best corroborate the other material that…

R.S. Bedi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

ITA-144/2003HC Delhi28 Oct 2015
Section 131Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…y over and above what is stated in the sale deed, an addition under Section 69B of the Act “solely on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer” cannot be sustained. The decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Puneet Sabharwal (2011) 338 ITR 485 (Del) is an authority to the above legal position. Another decision which holds likewise is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lahsa Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 671 (Del). In other words, the report of the DVO cannot form the sole basis to sustain addition under Section 69B of the Act. It can at best corroborate the other material that…

Commissioner of Income Tax VII vs. Shri Karan Khandelwal

The appeals are allowed

ITA/334/2009HC Delhi23 Apr 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

For Respondent: Mr P.S. Khandelwal in person for Mr Karan Khandelwal

…Page 15 of 33 decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Central-III v. Suneet Verma 145 (2007) DLT 280 (DB), Commissioner of Income Tax XI v. Shri Puneet Sabharwal 291 338 ITR 485 (Delhi) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Naresh Khattar (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi). 14. In K.P. Varghese (supra), the assessee sold a house which he had purchased in 1958 to his daughter in law and five of his children, for the same consideration, in the year 1965. The Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment invoking the provisi…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central III vs. Sunil Bedi

The appeals are allowed

ITA/82/2009HC Delhi23 Apr 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

For Respondent: Mr P.S. Khandelwal in person for Mr Karan Khandelwal

…Page 15 of 33 decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Central-III v. Suneet Verma 145 (2007) DLT 280 (DB), Commissioner of Income Tax XI v. Shri Puneet Sabharwal 291 338 ITR 485 (Delhi) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Naresh Khattar (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi). 14. In K.P. Varghese (supra), the assessee sold a house which he had purchased in 1958 to his daughter in law and five of his children, for the same consideration, in the year 1965. The Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment invoking the provisi…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central III vs. Sunil Bedi

The appeals are allowed

ITA - 82 / 2009HC Delhi23 Apr 2012
For Respondent: Mr P.S. Khandelwal in person for Mr Karan Khandelwal

…Page 15 of 33 decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Central-III v. Suneet Verma 145 (2007) DLT 280 (DB), Commissioner of Income Tax XI v. Shri Puneet Sabharwal 291 338 ITR 485 (Delhi) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Naresh Khattar (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi). 14. In K.P. Varghese (supra), the assessee sold a house which he had purchased in 1958 to his daughter in law and five of his children, for the same consideration, in the year 1965. The Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment invoking the provisi…