How many judgments cite February 16, 2010, CIT v. Shakuntala Devi?

43 judgments on BharatTax cite February 16, 2010, CIT v. Shakuntala Devi (294 ITR 143), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does February 16, 2010, CIT v. Shakuntala Devi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 127, Section 139, Section 251, Section 106, Section 115BBE, Section 118.

February 16, 2010, CIT v. Shakuntala Devi

294 ITR 143High Court2007#2709 most cited

What is February 16, 2010, CIT v. Shakuntala Devi authority for?

A Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report, by itself, is not sufficient information to conclude understatement of consideration or make additions to income. The Revenue must discharge the burden of proving actual receipt of higher consideration, beyond merely relying on a DVO's opinion, especially in the absence of incriminating evidence.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shakuntala Devi · CIT v. Ashok Khetrapal · 294 ITR 143 · Departmental Valuation Officer report · DVO opinion sufficiency · Section 147 reopening assessment · Section 52(2) understated consideration · Section 69B undisclosed investment · incriminating documents · onus on Revenue · K.P. Varghese principle · fair market value

Sections most often in play

Section 127 Section 139 Section 251 Section 106 Section 115BBE Section 118 Section 120 Section 122

Issues it is cited on

section 52(2)section 7(1)section 75 section 52 circle rate section 69b section 260 section 260a section 57 fair market value agricultural income income-tax officer

Judgments citing February 16, 2010, CIT v. Shakuntala Devi

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

…rghese (supra). Varghese had also been followed and applied by the Supreme Court in CIT v . Godavari Corpn. Ltd. [1993] 112 CTR (SC) 310 : [1993] 200 ITR 567 (SC). The Division Bench of this Court in CIT v . Ashok Khetrapal [2007] 211 CTR (Delhi) 576 : [2007] 294 ITR 143 (Delhi) referred to the report of a Valuation Officer in 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…

Jayanta Kumar Sardar, Bardhaman vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Durgapur.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1251/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…ghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), Civil Appeal No. 9468 of 2003 (Asst. CIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. [2010] 328 ITR 515 (SC)) decided by the apex court on February 16, 2010, CIT v. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46 (Delhi), CIT v. Ashok Khetrapal [2007] 294 ITR 143 (Delhi) and CIT v. Manoj Jain [2006] 287 ITR 285 (Delhi)." In the case of Asst. CIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co. [2010] 328 ITR 515, (SC) held as under: "Having examined the record, we find that in this case, the Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The opinion of the DV…

ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Saturn Advisory Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

Section 143(1)

…f 2003, decided by the apex Court on 16th Feb., 2010, [reported at (2010) 236 CTR (SC) 226 : (2010) 47 DTR (SC) 288—Ed.], CIT vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devi (2009) 224 CTR (Del) 79 : (2009) 316 ITR 46 (Del), CIT vs. Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 211 CTR (Del) 576 : (2007) 294 ITR 143 (Del) and CIT vs. Manoj Jain (2006) 200 CTR (Del) 327 : (2006) 287 ITR 285 (Del)]. 10. Further, the reliance of learned counsel for the Revenue on the Supreme Court's decision in Mukundray K. Shah (supra) is misplaced. In the said case, the entire picture regarding the working of circular trading became apparent only after seeing the cash flow s…

Chandra Swami vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 1094 / 2011HC Delhi27 Aug 2015

Section 12ASection 132Section 158BSection 260ASection 80G

…der of the ITAT 5. In its impugned order dated 6<sup>th</sup> April 2011 the ITAT first took up the appeal of Mr. Chandra Swami. The ITAT referred to the decisions of this Court in CIT v. Ravi Kant Jain (2001) 250 ITR 141 (Del); CIT v. Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 (Del) and CIT v. Bansal High Carbons (P) Ltd. (2007) 165 Taxman 243 (Del) and concluded that the scope and ambit of a block assessment was limited to evidence and/or materials unearthed during the search and such other materials and information as available with the AO which were relatable to the evidence or materials found during the course of s…

Vishwadharmayatan Trust vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/1093/2011HC Delhi27 Aug 2015

Section 12ASection 132Section 158BSection 260ASection 80G

…The order of the ITAT 5. In its impugned order dated 6th April 2011 the ITAT first took up the appeal of Mr. Chandra Swami. The ITAT referred to the decisions of this Court in CIT v. Ravi Kant Jain (2001) 250 ITR 141 (Del); CIT v. Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 (Del) and CIT v. Bansal High Carbons (P) Ltd. (2007) 165 Taxman 243 (Del) and concluded that the scope and ambit of a block assessment was limited to evidence and/or materials unearthed during the search and such other materials and information as available with the AO which were relatable to the evidence or materials found during the course…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nishi Mehra

ITA - 120 / 2000HC Delhi19 Feb 2015

Section 142ASection 153ASection 158B

…v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), Civil Appeal No.9468 of 2003 (Asstt. CIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 5151 (SC) decided by the apex court on February 16, 2010, CIT v. Shakuntala Devi (2009) 316 ITR 46 (Delhi), CIT v. Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 (Delhi) and CIT v. Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285 (Delhi).” 7. Likewise in Bajrang Lal (supra), too it was held that “it is settled law that the primary burden to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nishi Mehra

ITA/120/2000HC Delhi19 Feb 2015

Section 142ASection 153ASection 158B

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain HUF

ITA/610/2012HC Delhi19 Oct 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 153ASection 260ASection 69B

…deed, following the ratio of K.P.Verghese (supra). K P Verghese (supra) has also been followed and applied by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Godavari Corporation Limited 200 ITR 567. The division bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ashok Khetrpal 294 ITR 143 observed that by referring to the report of valuation officer in the absence of aiiy(sic) incriminating documents found in the course of a search no addition could be made by treating investment as undisclosed on the basis of any DYC’s report. The decision in CIT Vs. Mar Jam 287 ITR 285 is also to the same effect. In CIT Vs. Shivakami Co…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain HUF

ITA - 610 / 2012HC Delhi19 Oct 2012

Section 132Section 153ASection 260ASection 69B

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA/1968/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 698

…c.69B, following the judgrnents of the Supreme Couft in K.p. varghese vs ITo (198r) 131 ITR 597 and CIT vs Shivakami company (p) Lrd. (r9BO 159 ITR 71 and the judgrnents of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345l2007, cIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and cIT vs Manoi Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7 . 'We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgrnents cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this court, but the contention of iv{r. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances pe'nit an inference of understatetnent of consideration, it is not necessa…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA/1972/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 698

…69B, following the judgrnents of the Supreme Court in K.p. Varghese vs ITo (I98r) tgt ITR 597 and CIT vs Shivalcami Company (p) Ltd. (t9s6) 159 iTR 71 and the judgrnents of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345l2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 28s. 7 . We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgments cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this court, but the contention of Mr. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances pennit an inference o.f understatement of consideration, it is not necessary t…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain HUF

ITA/85/2011HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 698

….69B, following the jrrdgments of the Supreme Court in I{.p. Varghese vs ITo (1981) 131 ITR 597 and cIT vs shivakami company (p) Ltd. (19g6) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345l2007, cIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and cIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287ITR 28s. 7 . We should have thought ihat the question is concluded by the judgments cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this court, but the contention of VIr. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances pennit an inference of understatement of consideration, it is not necessary to…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA/1971/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…69B, .following the judgments of the Supreme Court in KP. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 and CITvs Shivakami Company (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in IT A No.345/2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7. We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgments cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this court, but the contention of Mr. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances permit an inference of understatement of consideration, it is not necessar…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA/1969/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 13Section 260ASection 69B

….69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 and C!Tvs Shivakami Company (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345/2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7. We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgments cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this court, but the contention of Mr. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances permit an inference of understatement of consideration, it is not necessar…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA/1817/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…ec.69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese vs ITo (r98r) 131 ITR 597 and cIT vs shivakami company (P) Ltd. (1996) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court n CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345i2007, CIT vs Asholc Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 28s. 7. We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgments cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this court, but the contention of Mr. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances permit an inference of understatement of consideration, it is not necessary to…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA/1811/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 698

…c.69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in I{.p. Varghese vs ITo (1981) 131 ITR 597 and cIT vs shivakami Company (p) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345l2007, cIT vs ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and cIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287ITR 285. 7. ' We should have thought ihat the question is concluded by the judgrnents cited above, both of the Supreme Court and.of this court, but the contention of Mr. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances pennit an inference of understatetnent of consideration, it is not necessary…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA/1812/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…er sec.69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 and CIT vs Shivakami Company (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vj Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345/2007, CITvs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj Vam (2006) 287 ITR285. 7. We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgments cited above, both of the Suprero^e Court and of this court, but the contention of Mr. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances permit an inference of understatement of consideration, it is not necessary to l…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA/1813/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 69B

…B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 and CIT vs Shivakami Company (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala De vi in IT A No.345/2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Mana}_ Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7. We should have thought that the question is concluded by tlie judgments ·cited above; both of the Supreme Court and of this court, but the contention of Mr. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances permit an inference of understatement of consideration, it is not neces…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA/1807/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 698

…sec.69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese vs ITo (198L) 131 ITR 597 and cITvs shivakami Company (p) Ltd. (t996) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345/2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal Q007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7 . We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgrnents cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this court, but the contention of Mr. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances pennit an inference of understatement of consideration, it is not necessary t…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA/1803/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 698

…c.69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in I{.p. Varghese vs ITo (1981) 131 ITR 597 and CIT vs shivakami Company (p) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345l2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7 . We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgrnents cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this court, but the contention of Mr. Sabharwal for the revenue is that where the facts and circumstances permit an inference of understatement of consideration, it is not necessary t…