CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd.

159 ITR 71Supreme Court of India1986#769 most cited

What is CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The burden of proving an understatement of consideration or the receipt of 'on-money' lies solely with the Revenue, which must provide cogent evidence of actual receipt of higher consideration, beyond mere estimates or suspicion. Additions cannot be made based on assumptions like differences from circle rates without such evidence.

133

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. · 159 ITR 71 · burden of proof Revenue · understatement of consideration · on-money receipt · evidence of higher price · section 52(2) · section 69B · capital gains · circle rate difference · K.P. Varghese principle

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 69BSection 153ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 132(4)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 52(2)section 7(1)section 75voluntary admissionsection 52abatement of assessmentcircle ratethird party informationon money receiptsection 69bsection 158b(b)section 158bb(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd.

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ssee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) held that unless there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for making addition. In the present case, we do not find any material on record suggesting the payment of on-money consideration at the time of purchase of land by the respondent-assessee and its group companies. Theref…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VRAJLAL BABULAL BAMBHAROLIYA, AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1132/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

…rstatement. The AO has not brought on record any evidence which would allow him to substitute the recorded consideration by any other figure as permitted under the law, to arrive at "full value of consideration Further, in CIT v. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains 6.6 It is relevant to refer to the Decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs. Mis Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd and Smt. Anju Gupta, Smt. Usha Gupta in I…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ARVINDKUMAR BABULAL BAMBHAROLIYA, AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1131/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153CSection 250

…rstatement. The AO has not brought on record any evidence which would allow him to substitute the recorded consideration by any other figure as permitted under the law, to arrive at "full value of consideration Further, in CIT v. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains 6.6 It is relevant to refer to the Decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs. Mis Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd and Smt. Anju Gupta, Smt. Usha Gupta in I…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ASHOKKUMAR BABULAL BAMBHAROLIYA, AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1130/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153CSection 250

…rstatement. The AO has not brought on record any evidence which would allow him to substitute the recorded consideration by any other figure as permitted under the law, to arrive at "full value of consideration Further, in CIT v. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains 6.6 It is relevant to refer to the Decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs. Mis Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd and Smt. Anju Gupta, Smt. Usha Gupta in I…

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 28 3 1 MUMBAI, VASHI vs. TRIVENI AND C J GROUP, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is accordingly dismissed in the above terms

ITA 4032/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito 28(3)(1) Vs. Triveni & C. J. R. No. 316, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Group, Railway Station, Vashi Shop No. 1, Bhoomi Navi Mumbai-400 703 Tower, Sector-4, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-400 709 Pan/Gir No. Aafft1041B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ritika Agarwal, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…:- Sr. Citation Held No. 1 K.P. Varghese v. ITO The burden of proving an (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue. It cannot be done on presumption 2 CIT v. Shivakami Co.(P) The burden is on the revenue to Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 prove the understatement of the (SC) and CIT v. Godavari consideration Corporation Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 567 (SC) 3 CIT V. M/s. Metro In the Absence of any evidence, Construction Co. ITA merely on the basis of no.2339 of 2013(Bom.) suspicion, it is not open to add any amount as income 4 CIT v. Dophin Builders (P.) No on money addition without Ltd. (…

DCIT-27(3), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. VARSHA ENTERPRISES, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1848/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: \nShri Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: \nMs.Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 144Section 52(2)

…hat to throw the burden of showing that\nthere is no understatement of the consideration on the assessee, would be to cast an\nalmost impossible burden upon him to establish a negative. Similar view has been\nreiterated in CIT vs. Shivakami Co. P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC). In this\ncase, their Lordships have laid down that no addition can be made unless there is\nevidence that more consideration than what was stated in the document, was\nreceived. In the light of the above decisions, it is manifest that no addition can be\nmade unless the Revenue proves understatement of consideration with some cogent\nevidenc…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…the absence of any incriminating documents found in the course of a search. The decision in CIT v . Manoj Jain [2006] 200 CTR (Delhi) 327 : [2006] 287 ITR 285 (Delhi) is also to the same effect. In CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. [1986] 52 CTR (SC) 108 : [1986] 159 ITR 71 (SC) their Lordships have once again reiterated that the onus whether the assessee had received more consideration than what was stated in the documents of transfer rested on the Revenue and in the absence of that burden being discharged it would be legally impermissible to make any inferences against the assessee. (Para 5) 10. Ananthakrishna Vasu…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ubmitted that in the instant case such burden has not been discharged by revenue and in absence thereof addition made is not in accordance with law. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese v. ITO ii) 159 ITR 71 (SC) CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. iii) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan “The appeals relate to the asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee is a Muslim lady who was aged about 20 years during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1968-69. On 15th November, 1967, she had purchased 16 cents of land in Ernakulam and the amount…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ubmitted that in the instant case such burden has not been discharged by revenue and in absence thereof addition made is not in accordance with law. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese v. ITO ii) 159 ITR 71 (SC) CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. iii) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan “The appeals relate to the asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee is a Muslim lady who was aged about 20 years during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1968-69. On 15th November, 1967, she had purchased 16 cents of land in Ernakulam and the amount…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ubmitted that in the instant case such burden has not been discharged by revenue and in absence thereof addition made is not in accordance with law. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese v. ITO ii) 159 ITR 71 (SC) CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. iii) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan “The appeals relate to the asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee is a Muslim lady who was aged about 20 years during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1968-69. On 15th November, 1967, she had purchased 16 cents of land in Ernakulam and the amount…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ubmitted that in the instant case such burden has not been discharged by revenue and in absence thereof addition made is not in accordance with law. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese v. ITO ii) 159 ITR 71 (SC) CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. iii) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan “The appeals relate to the asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee is a Muslim lady who was aged about 20 years during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1968-69. On 15th November, 1967, she had purchased 16 cents of land in Ernakulam and the amount…

M/S. ATRI DEVELOPERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2859/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 250

…ing to only two flats was repeatedly argued by Shri Ankit Talsania, AR. The citations given by him are as under: (a) C.I.T. Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., 91 I.T.R. 8 (SC) (b) C.I.T. v. A.Raman & Company, 67 ITR 11 (SC) (c) C.I.T. Vs. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd.. 159 ITR 71 (SC) I have gone through the ratio laid down in above case laws and of the opinion that it is only presumption much less suspicious of the AO that the Appellant has received On-Money of Rs.5,00,000/- per flat. The Appellant has further relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. 37 ITR 271 wherein it has been h…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ATRI DEVELOPERS,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2855/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 250

…ing to only two flats was repeatedly argued by Shri Ankit Talsania, AR. The citations given by him are as under: (a) C.I.T. Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., 91 I.T.R. 8 (SC) (b) C.I.T. v. A.Raman & Company, 67 ITR 11 (SC) (c) C.I.T. Vs. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd.. 159 ITR 71 (SC) I have gone through the ratio laid down in above case laws and of the opinion that it is only presumption much less suspicious of the AO that the Appellant has received On-Money of Rs.5,00,000/- per flat. The Appellant has further relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. 37 ITR 271 wherein it has been h…

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 486/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

…ssee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) held that unless ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 27 of 62 there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for making addition. 4.35 Further, the ld. AO cannot solely rely on the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act as rec…

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 466/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

…ssee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) held that unless ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 27 of 62 there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for making addition. 4.35 Further, the ld. AO cannot solely rely on the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act as rec…

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

ITA 465/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 69B

…ssee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) held that unless there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for making addition. 4.35 Further, the ld. AO cannot solely rely on the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act as recently held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Pavitra Realcon Pvt. Ltd. reported in…

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

…ssee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) held that unless ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 27 of 62 there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for making addition. 4.35 Further, the ld. AO cannot solely rely on the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act as rec…

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

…ssee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) held that unless ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 27 of 62 there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for making addition. 4.35 Further, the ld. AO cannot solely rely on the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act as rec…

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 415/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. 8.13 Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) held that unless ITA Nos.414&415/Bang/2024 Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kasargod ITA Nos.167&168/Bang/2024 Tabesco Hindustan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kasargod ITA Nos.174 & 175/Bang/2024 MKH Infrastructure, Kasargod Page 27 of 62 there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price can be taken to…

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 174/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. 8.13 Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) held that unless ITA Nos.414&415/Bang/2024 Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kasargod ITA Nos.167&168/Bang/2024 Tabesco Hindustan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kasargod ITA Nos.174 & 175/Bang/2024 MKH Infrastructure, Kasargod Page 27 of 62 there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price can be taken to…

Showing 1–20 of 133 · Page 1 of 7