CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi

316 ITR 46High Court2009#1551 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi authority for?

The primary burden is on the revenue to prove that an assessee received consideration over and above the amount stated in a sale deed. A valuation report from the DVO can only be relied upon after the revenue discharges this initial burden of proof.

73

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi · 316 ITR 46 · undisclosed sale consideration · burden of proof revenue · DVO valuation report · section 69 · section 69C · primary burden on revenue · assessee property sale · cash over sale deed

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 69Section 115BBESection 143(2)Section 153ASection 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 142asection 44afsection 132(5)section 131(1)(d)surrender of incomesection 150mat creditsection 55asection 100accumulated profitssection 158bdsection 38

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAMA SHANKAR KHEMKA, GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…w that sale deed cannot be disregarded as has been held in the following judgments: 1) 262 ITR 354 (Ker) CIT vs. K.C.Agnes and Ors (extracted at page 316 of Paper Book) ii) 323 ITR 588 (P&H) Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (extracted at page 316 of Paper Book) iii) 316 ITR 46 (Del) CIT vs. Shankutla Devi (extracted at page 317 of Paper Book) iv) 52 SOT 62 (Chd) Rajdeep Builders vs. Asstt. CIT vi) 250 ITR 484 (P&H) CIT vs. Satinder Kumar vii) 323 ITR 510 (P&H) CIT vs. Chandni Bhuchar viii) 49 SOT 732 (Chd) Subash Chand vs. Asstt. CIT 35 THAT MESSAGE EXCHANGED ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS SUCH AS 'WHATSAPP CHAT HAS NO…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAJESH RANI KHEMKA , GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…w that sale deed cannot be disregarded as has been held in the following judgments: 1) 262 ITR 354 (Ker) CIT vs. K.C.Agnes and Ors (extracted at page 316 of Paper Book) ii) 323 ITR 588 (P&H) Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (extracted at page 316 of Paper Book) iii) 316 ITR 46 (Del) CIT vs. Shankutla Devi (extracted at page 317 of Paper Book) iv) 52 SOT 62 (Chd) Rajdeep Builders vs. Asstt. CIT vi) 250 ITR 484 (P&H) CIT vs. Satinder Kumar vii) 323 ITR 510 (P&H) CIT vs. Chandni Bhuchar viii) 49 SOT 732 (Chd) Subash Chand vs. Asstt. CIT 35 THAT MESSAGE EXCHANGED ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS SUCH AS 'WHATSAPP CHAT HAS NO…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PAYAL KHEMKA , K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…w that sale deed cannot be disregarded as has been held in the following judgments: 1) 262 ITR 354 (Ker) CIT vs. K.C.Agnes and Ors (extracted at page 316 of Paper Book) ii) 323 ITR 588 (P&H) Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (extracted at page 316 of Paper Book) iii) 316 ITR 46 (Del) CIT vs. Shankutla Devi (extracted at page 317 of Paper Book) iv) 52 SOT 62 (Chd) Rajdeep Builders vs. Asstt. CIT vi) 250 ITR 484 (P&H) CIT vs. Satinder Kumar vii) 323 ITR 510 (P&H) CIT vs. Chandni Bhuchar viii) 49 SOT 732 (Chd) Subash Chand vs. Asstt. CIT 35 THAT MESSAGE EXCHANGED ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS SUCH AS 'WHATSAPP CHAT HAS NO…

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CC-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5644/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…T (extracted at pages 282-283 of Paper Book) c) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. NareshKhattar (HUF) (extracted at page 283 of Paper Book) d) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT e) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera f) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO g) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi h) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. BajrangLal Bansal 20. Ld. AR further submitted that lack of enquiry by the Assessing officer from Sh. Kashif MK Traders by issuing notice u/s 133(6) or 131 of the Act to establish that claim of the assessee since from the beginning i.e. during investigation proceedings and during the cou…

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5643/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…T (extracted at pages 282-283 of Paper Book) c) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. NareshKhattar (HUF) (extracted at page 283 of Paper Book) d) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT e) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera f) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO g) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi h) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. BajrangLal Bansal 20. Ld. AR further submitted that lack of enquiry by the Assessing officer from Sh. Kashif MK Traders by issuing notice u/s 133(6) or 131 of the Act to establish that claim of the assessee since from the beginning i.e. during investigation proceedings and during the cou…

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

…the case of CIT v. Vinod Singhal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again, reliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the assessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the sale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when this burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon the value as given in the valuation report of the…

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

…the case of CIT v. Vinod Singhal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again, reliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the assessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the sale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when this burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon the value as given in the valuation report of the…

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

…case of CIT v. Vinod Singhal (IT Appeal\nNo.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again, reliance was placed on the very same\ndecision of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court\nin CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a\nfinding that the assessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated\nin the sale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when\nthis burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon the value\nas given in the valuation report of…

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 153D

…case of CIT v.\nVinodSinghal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again,\nreliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P.\nVarghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the\nassessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the\nsale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when\nthis burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon\nthe value as given in the valuation report of…

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

…case of CIT v.\nVinodSinghal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again,\nreliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P.\nVarghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the\nassessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the\nsale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when\nthis burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon\nthe value as given in the valuation report of…

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 153D

…case of CIT v.\nVinodSinghal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again,\nreliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P.\nVarghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the\nassessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the\nsale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when\nthis burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon\nthe value as given in the valuation report of…

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
Section 132Section 153A

…case of CIT v.\nVinodSinghal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again,\nreliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P.\nVarghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the\nassessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the\nsale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when\nthis burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon\nthe value as given in the valuation report of…

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

…case of CIT v.\nVinodSinghal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again,\nreliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P.\nVarghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the\nassessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the\nsale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when\nthis burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon\nthe value as given in the valuation report of…

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

…case of CIT v.\nVinodSinghal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again,\nreliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P.\nVarghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the\nassessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the\nsale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when\nthis burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon\nthe value as given in the valuation report of…

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 153D

…case of CIT v.\nVinodSinghal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again,\nreliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P.\nVarghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the\nassessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the\nsale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when\nthis burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon\nthe value as given in the valuation report of…

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 132Section 153A

…case of CIT v.\nVinodSinghal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again,\nreliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P.\nVarghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the\nassessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the\nsale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when\nthis burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon\nthe value as given in the valuation report of…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 732/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case of CIT v.\nVinodSinghal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again,\nreliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P.\nVarghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the\nassessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the\nsale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when\nthis burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon\nthe value as given in the valuation report of…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 731/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case of CIT v.\nVinodSinghal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again,\nreliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P.\nVarghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the\nassessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the\nsale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when\nthis burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon\nthe value as given in the valuation report of…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 730/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case of CIT v.\nVinodSinghal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again,\nreliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P.\nVarghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the\nassessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the\nsale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when\nthis burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon\nthe value as given in the valuation report of…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 729/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…case of CIT v.\nVinodSinghal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again,\nreliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P.\nVarghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the\nassessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the\nsale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when\nthis burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon\nthe value as given in the valuation report of…

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala\nDevi (316 ITR 46) — Cited in 73 Judgments | BharatTax