Emphasis1 Supplied) (iii) In K. K. Seshaiyer v. CIT

246 ITR 351High Court2000#9579 most cited

What is Emphasis1 Supplied) (iii) In K. K. Seshaiyer v. CIT authority for?

When an assessee has duly recorded the actual cost of construction and this cost has been accepted by the Tribunal, the opinion of a valuer cannot be substituted for the recorded cost without a finding that the building is of a better quality or larger than claimed.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

K. K. Seshaiyer v. CIT · 246 ITR 351 · valuation · cost of construction · valuer's opinion · audited accounts · estimating income · section 145(3) · section 133A · section 142A

Also reported as

114 Taxmann 353

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 271AAC(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 131(1)(d)section 55asection 142(2)section 38section 142asection 131(1)section 55circle ratesection 158bcsection 69bsection 269

Judgments citing Emphasis1 Supplied) (iii) In K. K. Seshaiyer v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur. vs. M/S. Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery Private Limited, Lucknow

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 30/LKW/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69A

…ew that in the absence of rejecting the books of accounts which are audited, the Assessing Officer cannot resort to estimation. Reference has been made to some authorities, which we shall now refer to. In K.K. Seshaiyer Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 246 ITR 351 (Mad), the case before the Madras High Court was in respect of the Assessment Year 1978-79 before Section 142A was introduced. The issue referred for consideration was whether the Tribunal was right in ignoring the valuation of the house property submitted by the assessee and instead adopting a sum as the valuation of the property by calling for…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -I, Raipur vs. Lord Buddha Educational Society, Raipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 193/RPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ee's case. Moreover, there was no evidence found as a result of the search to suggest that the assessee had made any payment over and above the consideration mentioned in the return of the assessee." (Emphasis1 Supplied) (iii) In K. K. Seshaiyer v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 351/[2001] 114 Taxman 353 (Mad.), a Division Bench of this court held as under (headnote) : "When the actual cost of construction was duly recorded by the assessee and that cost also was set out in the agreement with the contractor, specifying the rates, and which rates had been accepted by the Tribunal, and there was no finding that the building was…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -I, Raipur vs. Lord Buddha Educational Society, Raipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 192/RPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ee's case. Moreover, there was no evidence found as a result of the search to suggest that the assessee had made any payment over and above the consideration mentioned in the return of the assessee." (Emphasis1 Supplied) (iii) In K. K. Seshaiyer v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 351/[2001] 114 Taxman 353 (Mad.), a Division Bench of this court held as under (headnote) : "When the actual cost of construction was duly recorded by the assessee and that cost also was set out in the agreement with the contractor, specifying the rates, and which rates had been accepted by the Tribunal, and there was no finding that the building was…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -I, Raipur vs. Lord Buddha Educational Society, Raipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 191/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ee's case. Moreover, there was no evidence found as a result of the search to suggest that the assessee had made any payment over and above the consideration mentioned in the return of the assessee." (Emphasis1 Supplied) (iii) In K. K. Seshaiyer v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 351/[2001] 114 Taxman 353 (Mad.), a Division Bench of this court held as under (headnote) : "When the actual cost of construction was duly recorded by the assessee and that cost also was set out in the agreement with the contractor, specifying the rates, and which rates had been accepted by the Tribunal, and there was no finding that the building was…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -I, Raipur vs. Lord Buddha Educational Society, Raipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 190/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ee's case. Moreover, there was no evidence found as a result of the search to suggest that the assessee had made any payment over and above the consideration mentioned in the return of the assessee." (Emphasis1 Supplied) (iii) In K. K. Seshaiyer v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 351/[2001] 114 Taxman 353 (Mad.), a Division Bench of this court held as under (headnote) : "When the actual cost of construction was duly recorded by the assessee and that cost also was set out in the agreement with the contractor, specifying the rates, and which rates had been accepted by the Tribunal, and there was no finding that the building was…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -I, Raipur vs. Lord Buddha Educational Society, Raipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 189/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ee's case. Moreover, there was no evidence found as a result of the search to suggest that the assessee had made any payment over and above the consideration mentioned in the return of the assessee." (Emphasis1 Supplied) (iii) In K. K. Seshaiyer v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 351/[2001] 114 Taxman 353 (Mad.), a Division Bench of this court held as under (headnote) : "When the actual cost of construction was duly recorded by the assessee and that cost also was set out in the agreement with the contractor, specifying the rates, and which rates had been accepted by the Tribunal, and there was no finding that the building was…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -I, Raipur vs. Lord Buddha Educational Society, Raipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

ITA 188/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ee's case. Moreover, there was no evidence found as a result of the search to suggest that the assessee had made any payment over and above the consideration mentioned in the return of the assessee." (Emphasis1 Supplied) (iii) In K. K. Seshaiyer v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 351/[2001] 114 Taxman 353 (Mad.), a Division Bench of this court held as under (headnote) : "When the actual cost of construction was duly recorded by the assessee and that cost also was set out in the agreement with the contractor, specifying the rates, and which rates had been accepted by the Tribunal, and there was no finding that the building was…

M/S. J Farm House, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 309/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /I.T.A.No.306, 307, 308 & 309 /Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 & 2003-04 Jay Farm House, The Assistant Commissioner of No.18, Balamuthukrishnan Street, v. Income-tax, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAB FJ 6822 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं…

Jay Farm House, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 308/CHNY/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /I.T.A.No.306, 307, 308 & 309 /Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 & 2003-04 Jay Farm House, The Assistant Commissioner of No.18, Balamuthukrishnan Street, v. Income-tax, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAB FJ 6822 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं…

Jay Farm House, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 307/CHNY/2011[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /I.T.A.No.306, 307, 308 & 309 /Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 & 2003-04 Jay Farm House, The Assistant Commissioner of No.18, Balamuthukrishnan Street, v. Income-tax, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAB FJ 6822 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं…

Jay Farm House, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 306/CHNY/2011[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /I.T.A.No.306, 307, 308 & 309 /Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 & 2003-04 Jay Farm House, The Assistant Commissioner of No.18, Balamuthukrishnan Street, v. Income-tax, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAB FJ 6822 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं…

Emphasis1 Supplied) (iii) In K. K. Seshaiyer v. CIT (246 ITR 351) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax