CIT v. S.K. Construction Co.

328 ITR 516High Court2010#2810 most cited

What is CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. authority for?

An addition to income cannot be made solely based on a Departmental Valuation Officer's report without any corroborating incriminating material. The burden of proof rests on the revenue.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. · addition based on DVO report · incriminating material · burden of proof on revenue · section 132 · section 143(3) · valuation report

Also reported as

167 Taxmann 171

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 115BBESection 153ASection 154Section 69CSection 127

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 132(5)section 55asection 38section 100section 131(1)(d)section 153(c)(1)section 142(2)section 142asection 94abatement of assessmentanonymous donation

Judgments citing CIT v. S.K. Construction Co.

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

…Revenue was dismissed. The learned Counsel for Mr. Sunil Bedi has also relied upon CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2008] 305 ITR 245 (Del), CIT v. Prem Nath Nagpal 214 CTR 51 (Del) CIT v. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46 (Del) CIT v. Naveen Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT v. Kishan Kumar and Others [2009] 315 ITR 204 (Raj.) and CIT v. Dr. S.Bharti [2002] 254 ITR 261 (Del). In Ved Prakash (supra) during the course of search at the residence of respondent two MoUs were recovered. The assessee admitted signatures on those MoUs but denied having received the amount mentioned in the documents. The A…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mr.Puneet Sabharwal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 758 / 2005HC Delhi03 Dec 2010
Section 45Section 48Section 55ASection 69B

…icer, per se, was not an information and could not be relied upon without the books of accounts being rejected which had not been done in that case. 2010:DHC:5878-DB 9. The aforesaid principle of law has been reaffirmed in CIT Vs. Naveen Gera, 328 ITR 516 stating that opinion of the District Valuation Officer per se was not sufficient and other corroborated evidence is required. Mr. Maratha, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) has been explained by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Amar Kumari Suran…