How many judgments cite CIT v. Smt. K.C. Agnes?

27 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Smt. K.C. Agnes (262 ITR 354), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Smt. K.C. Agnes come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 292C, Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 69B.

CIT v. Smt. K.C. Agnes

262 ITR 354High Court2003#4330 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. K.C. Agnes authority for?

A registered sale deed cannot be disregarded for income tax purposes, even if an agreement or other document shows a higher purchase price. Addition under Section 69B cannot be made based solely on such discrepancies when a registered sale deed is available.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Smt. K.C. Agnes · registered sale deed · section 69B · addition · purchase price · agreement to sell · discrepancies · income tax act

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 292C Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 69B Section 139 Section 68

Issues it is cited on

transferee company section 131(1a)section 38 section 69b section 292c section 91 on-money survey under section 133a section 65b section 65 section 132a section 132(4a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. K.C. Agnes

Aditi Aggarwal, Ambala Cantt vs. Pr.CIT, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 21/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ent Ltd. (Successor to Wespoint Leisureparks Ltd.) Vs. Pr. CIT in ITA No. 688/Mum/2016 dt. 24/06/2016 (Mum Trib) • Smt. Shardaben B. Patel Vs. Pr. CIT-5, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 1026/Ahd/2018 dt. 25/09/2019 (Ahd Trib). • CIT Vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes And Others [2003] 262 ITR 354 (Kerala) • M/s Colors Textiles Limited Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1514/Chd/2017 (Chd Trib) order dt. 05/12/2018 • CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) • ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Project Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) • City Beautiful Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 554/Chd/2017 (Chd Trib) order dt. 04/10/2018 • PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Met…

Charminar Bottling Company Private Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1344/HYD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07 Charminar Bottling Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Company Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Secunderabad. Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc2858E (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Kanika Jain Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/05/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2006-07 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - Iii, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 12/07/2013 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Smt. Kanika JainFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar

Section 143(3)Section 69

…006 (@ paper book pg. 143-158) manifests that a different land for a different consideration was actually purchased. Thus no point arises by linking I coinciding loose sheets with a document which was never acted upon. Refer: a. CIT v. Smt. K. C. Agnes (2003) 262 ITR 354 (refer to judgment compendium page 38 para 5) b. ACIT, Delhi v. Kundan Singh 2019 SCC ONLINE 9558 (refer to judgment compendium page 27 para 5.4) 5. The AO and the Ld. CIT(A) have sought to challenge the validity of a duly registered document by saying that the name of purchaser on it was wrong. The same is not sustainable as the remedy to challe…

Balraj Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 1948/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: And Shri Priyansh Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…89 ITR 0065 (Supreme Court) in which it was held that photo copies have very little evidentiary value. 13 ITA.No.1948/Del./2019 Shri Balraj Gupta, New Delhi. He has also relied upon decision of Kerela High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes (2003) 262 ITR 354 in which it was held that “unless it is proved that the agreement was acted upon and unless the amount stated in the agreement was paid for the sale, one can not come to the conclusion that the price mentioned in the sale deed is not correct. On the other hand Ld. DR submitted that on the basis of the photo copy of the receipt, prima facie case w…

Smt. Kundan Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 2061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT_D.R

Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

…y shows that amount is paid by assessee through banking channel and thus, the contents of sale deed cannot be disregarded. In support of this proposition, assessee relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes (2003) 262 ITR 354 (Kerala), Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588 (P & H), Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi 316 ITR 46 (Del.), Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Salem vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) and Order of ITAT, Ch…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Kundan Singh, New Delhi

Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1797/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT_D.R

Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

Smt.K.B.Sony, Cochin vs. The DCIT, Cochin

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 69

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. Nos. 383 to 386/Coch/2015 Assessment Years : 2007-08 and 2009-10 to 2011-12 Shri P.V. Sreenijin, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Keerthanam, Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Keerthi Nagar, Elamakkara, Ernakulam. Kochi-682 026. [PAN: BGDPS 2766P] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) I.T.A. No. 374/Coch/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shri P.V. Sreenijin, Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Keerthanam, Ernakulam. Keerthi Nagar, Elamakkara, Kochi-682 026.…

Shri Krishan Gopal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3249/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Ms.Bedobani, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH - ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 Shri Krishan Gopal ITO Vs. Prop. M/s. Kay Pee Lock Ward-39(1) Industries New Delhi. C/o M/s. RRA TAXINDIA, D-28, South Extension Part-1, New Delhi – 110 049 PAN ADIPG062IN (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Department by: Ms.Bedobani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 16 /05/2017 Per BHAVNESH SAINI, Judicial Member ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) XX…