K.P. Varghese v. ITO

131 ITR 597Supreme Court of India1981#45 most cited

What is K.P. Varghese v. ITO authority for?

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

972

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2026.

Also referred to as

K.P. Varghese v. ITO · 131 ITR 597 · difference in valuation · unexplained investment · Valuation Officer report · deletion of addition · Assessing Officer enquiry · Section 69 · Section 69A · Section 115BBE · no addition on suspicion · understatement of consideration

Also reported as

7 Taxmann 13

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 292CSection 69Section 153CSection 115BBESection 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 5(8)section 52closely held companyaccumulated profitsdumb documentssection 132(4a)section 131(1a)section 260section 69bsection 292csection 292bsection 292

Judgments citing K.P. Varghese v. ITO

JAYAKRISHNA NANDAMURI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1793/HYD/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1793/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1996-97) Shri Jayakrishna Vs. Dy. Cit Nandamuri Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaxpn3135E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A. Harish राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Advocate A. HarishFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 69B

…Income Tax Vs. Himanshu Chandulal Patel (c) 367 ITR 112 (Delhi) -Pepsi Foods P. Ltd Vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax (d) 290 ITR 245 (Delhi) –CIT Vs. Lalit Bhasin (e) 338 ITR 485 -CIT Vs. Puneet Sabharwal (f) KP Varghese Case Hon'ble Supreme Court in 131 ITR 597 (g) ITA No. 55/Hyd/2015 –G Mahesh Babu Vs. DCIT. 8. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has failed to satisfactorily explain the source of investment. It was contended that the findings of the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) are based on mate…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SUDHARSHNA ARORA, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1185/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarita No.1185 /Del./2010, A.Y. 2004-05 Ito, Vs Smt. Sudharshna Arora Ward-24(4), . B-6/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaepa8154H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…P.Ltd.v. CIT, (1976) 103 ITR 208, 216-7 (Punj); Marghabhai Kishabhai Patel & Co.v.CIT, (1977) 108 ITR 54 (Guj); CIT v. Smt. Nandini Nopany, (1998) 230 ITR 679,682 (Cal)" The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 131 ITR 597 observed as under: - "It is a well settled rule of law that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always on the Revenue and the burden lies on the Revenue to show that there is an understatement of the consideration. Moreover, to throw the burden of showing that there is no understatement of the consideration…

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

ITA 886/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Mangal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250(6)Section 69C

…ce of evidence of actual expenditure, no addition can be made u/s 69C. It was also argued that the assessee cannot be asked to prove a negative fact and reliance was 886-CHD-2024 22 placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P. Verghese vs. CIT (131 ITR 597). 37. Accordingly, it was prayed that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) be deleted in full. 38. The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). It was submitted that the addition was made on the basis of information obtained from the concerned parties in resp…

BHAGAWATI M JAIN,DOMBIVALI vs. WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2408/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhagawati M Jain Income Tax Officer C-22, Bhanu Chs, Ward 3(1), Bhanu Nagar, Dombivali East, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Vs. Kalyan - 421201 Kalyan-Murbad Rd, Maharashtra Kalyan-Dombivali, Maharashtra, 421301 (Pan: Aatpj1123G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Viraj Mehta, Ca Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073449956(1), Dated 19.02.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, U/S. 147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income- Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 26.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153CSection 69B

…olely on third party information without subjecting it to further scrutiny and denying the opportunity of cross examination of the third party, renders the addition/disallowance bad in law. 6.3. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KP Varghese vs. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) observed in Para 4 that it is a well settled rule of law that the onus of establishing the conditions of taxability are fulfilled, is 9 Bhagawati M Jain AY 2018-19 always on the revenue. To throw the burden of showing that there is no understatement of consideration on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to est…

AURANGABAD DIVISION LIFE INSURANCE EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,AURANBAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3175/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3175/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aurangabad Divison Life V The Income Tax Officer, Insurance Employees Co-Op S Ward-1(1), Aurangabad. Credit Society Ltd., 11, Jeevan Prakash, Lic Office Building Adalat Road, Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad -431005 Pan: Aaaaa2245A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ca Payal Rathi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit Date Of Hearing 09/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 24.09.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56Section 66Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…Firstly, the marginal note to section 80P which reads "Deduction in respectof income of co-operative societies" is important, in that it indicates the general "drift" of the provision. This was so held by this Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 as follows: "9. This interpretation of sub-section (2) is strongly supported by the marginal note to Section 52 which reads "Consideration for transfer in cases of understatement". It is undoubtedly true that the marginal note to a section cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the section but it can certainly be relied upon as indic…

ARTH FOUNDATION,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2258/PUN/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2258/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2026-27 Arth Foundation, V Commissioner Of Income Flat No.3, Tulip Apartment, S Tax (Exemption), Pune. Suyojit Garden, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422013. Pan: Aahta2324C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Trishala R Jain (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Passed Under Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 01.08.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : ―1. The Learned Cit(E), Pune Has Erred In Rejecting The 1 Application Of The Appellant Trust Filed U/S 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Act Without Considering The Merits Of The Case.

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

…endment procedure. 7. In this background we have to interpret the relevant provisions. To interpret the provisions, we shall refer to the Budget Speech of the Hon‘ble Finance Minister. 7.1 The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghese Vs. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) has observed as under regarding use of Speech of a Minister as a tool in interpretation: Quote , ― Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the s…

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

…an be taken of the practice prevailing in the property market of not disclosing the full consideration for transfer of properties.” 42 ITA.No.987/PUN./2025 (M/s. Shree Sai Properties) 53. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee 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) hel…

MANJREKAR FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2338/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2338/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: - Manjrekar Foundation, V Cit Exemption, Near Goodluckchowk, Decan S Pune. Gymkhana, Bhandarkar Road, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aactm7144D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Passed Under Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.08.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : ―1. The Ld. Cit Exemption Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Application Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G As Non- Maintainable On The Ground Of Being Filed Beyond The Statutory Period As Provided In Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Section 80G (5) & Thereby Rejecting The Same Without Going Into The Merits.

Section 10Section 11Section 3Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…endment procedure. 7. In this background we have to interpret the relevant provisions. To interpret the provisions, we shall refer to the Budget Speech of the Hon‘ble Finance Minister. 7.1 The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghese Vs. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) has observed as under regarding use of Speech of a Minister as a tool in interpretation: Quote , ― Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the s…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 SATARA, SATARA vs. KARAD PATAN TALUKA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI SOCIETY LIMITEDTY , KARAD

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2289/PUN/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2289/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Income Tax Officer, V Karad Patan Taluka Prathmik Ward-1, Satara. S Shikshak Sahakari Society Limited, 190 B Shaniwar Peth, Opp.Shivneri Lodge, Karad, Satara – 415110 Pan: Aaaak0559R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Satish U Nade Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 21.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The I.T .Act, 1961 Dated

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56Section 57Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…Firstly, the marginal note to section 80P which reads "Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies" is important, in that it indicates the general "drift" of the provision. This was so held by this Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 as follows: "9. This interpretation of sub-section (2) is strongly supported by the marginal note to Section 52 which reads "Consideration for transfer in cases of understatement". It is undoubtedly true that the marginal note to a section cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the section but it can certainly be relied upon as indi…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHAMEDNAGAR vs. KANIFNATH GRMAIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARIPATSANSTHA MARYADIT, , MALDAD

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2271/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2270 & 2271/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Kanifnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Ward-2, Ahmednagar. S Sahakaripatsanstha Maryadit, At Post Malad, Taluka Sangamner, Ahmednagar – 422608. Pan: Aabak1395E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018- 19Dated 01.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Order Under Section 250 Of The Income

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…. Firstly, the marginal note to section 80P which reads "Deduction in respectof income of co-operative societies" is important, in that it indicates the general "drift" of the provision. Thiswas so held by this Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 as follows: "9. This interpretation of sub-section (2) is strongly supported by the marginal note to Section 52 whichreads "Consideration for transfer in cases of understatement". It is undoubtedly true that the marginalnote to a section cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing thesection but it can certainly berelied upon as indicati…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. KANIFNATH GRMAIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI, MALDAD SANGAMNER

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2270/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2270 & 2271/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Kanifnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Ward-2, Ahmednagar. S Sahakaripatsanstha Maryadit, At Post Malad, Taluka Sangamner, Ahmednagar – 422608. Pan: Aabak1395E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018- 19Dated 01.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Order Under Section 250 Of The Income

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…. Firstly, the marginal note to section 80P which reads "Deduction in respectof income of co-operative societies" is important, in that it indicates the general "drift" of the provision. Thiswas so held by this Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 as follows: "9. This interpretation of sub-section (2) is strongly supported by the marginal note to Section 52 whichreads "Consideration for transfer in cases of understatement". It is undoubtedly true that the marginalnote to a section cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing thesection but it can certainly berelied upon as indicati…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MUTHULAKSHMI VELLAISAMY, TIRUPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 610/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

…unaccounted money by the seller by any form of evidence. Under these circumstances, based on paper jottings as conclusive evidence on money cannot be brought to tax as income from undisclosed sources." 6.3.28 Further in the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that “the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always on the revenue and that throwing the burden of showing that there is no under-statement of consideration on the assesse would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not recei…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. GNANAGURU LAVANYA, TIRUPUR

ITA 605/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

…unaccounted money by the seller by any form of evidence. Under these circumstances, based on paper jottings as conclusive evidence on money cannot be brought to tax as income from undisclosed sources." 6.3.28 Further in the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that “the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always on the revenue and that throwing the burden of showing that there is no under-statement of consideration on the assesse would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not recei…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHALLY THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6216/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sushi Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…assumption. It is a settled position in law, that no addition of notional income could be made under the Income-tax act to be brought to tax. Reference, in this regard, can be made to the celebrated decision of Supreme Court in the case of KP Varghese v ITO: 131 ITR 597. Thus, the present addition made by the AO could only be considered as notional in nature which cannot even be justified by applying deeming fiction contained in section 69C of the Act. Accordingly, addition made by AO u/s 69C of the Act for AY 2017-18 is hereby deleted. ” 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal b…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHALLY THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6215/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sushi Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…assumption. It is a settled position in law, that no addition of notional income could be made under the Income-tax act to be brought to tax. Reference, in this regard, can be made to the celebrated decision of Supreme Court in the case of KP Varghese v ITO: 131 ITR 597. Thus, the present addition made by the AO could only be considered as notional in nature which cannot even be justified by applying deeming fiction contained in section 69C of the Act. Accordingly, addition made by AO u/s 69C of the Act for AY 2017-18 is hereby deleted. ” 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal b…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHALLY THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6214/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sushi Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…assumption. It is a settled position in law, that no addition of notional income could be made under the Income-tax act to be brought to tax. Reference, in this regard, can be made to the celebrated decision of Supreme Court in the case of KP Varghese v ITO: 131 ITR 597. Thus, the present addition made by the AO could only be considered as notional in nature which cannot even be justified by applying deeming fiction contained in section 69C of the Act. Accordingly, addition made by AO u/s 69C of the Act for AY 2017-18 is hereby deleted. ” 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal b…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHALLY THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6213/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sushi Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 131Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…assumption. It is a settled position in law, that no addition of notional income could be made under the Income-tax act to be brought to tax. Reference, in this regard, can be made to the celebrated decision of Supreme Court in the case of KP Varghese v ITO: 131 ITR 597. Thus, the present addition made by the AO could only be considered as notional in nature which cannot even be justified by applying deeming fiction contained in section 69C of the Act. Accordingly, addition made by AO u/s 69C of the Act for AY 2017-18 is hereby deleted. ” 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal b…

VESTAS WIND TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. JCI, CO. RANGE-III, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Srinivasan, CIT for Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 92B

…d any consideration from the subsidiary companies beyond the invoice values and hence the impugned addition warrants deletion. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Varghese v. Income Tax Officer – [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), where this proposition was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. Per contra, the ld.DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and contended that the assessee had understated its sales, which has resulted in reduced taxable profits and prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the par…

AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2007/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…of the Act. The case of the assessee find support from the following decisions:- “1. CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) taxmann.com 2155 (SC) 2. Common cause V. U.O.I 394 ITR 220 (SC) 3. PCIT Vs. UmeshIshrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) 4. K.P. Varghese V. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) 5. S.P. Goyal V.DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai AT)” 11.6. Moreover, the presumption as provided in Section 292C of the Act cannot be taken against the assessee as these documents were not found from the assessee but from the associate concerns and that the presumption is to be drawn in respect of impugned transactions in the hands of the pers…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1499/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…of the Act. The case of the assessee find support from the following decisions:- “1. CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) taxmann.com 2155 (SC) 2. Common cause V. U.O.I 394 ITR 220 (SC) 3. PCIT Vs. UmeshIshrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) 4. K.P. Varghese V. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) 5. S.P. Goyal V.DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai AT)” 11.6. Moreover, the presumption as provided in Section 292C of the Act cannot be taken against the assessee as these documents were not found from the assessee but from the associate concerns and that the presumption is to be drawn in respect of impugned transactions in the hands of the pers…

Showing 1–20 of 972 · Page 1 of 49

...