K.P. Varghese v. ITO

131 ITR 597Supreme Court of India1981#44 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.

989

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 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

Heritage Youth Foundation, Ichalkaranji vs. CIT, Exemption Pune, Pune

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

ITA 579/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.579/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : - Heritage Youth Foundation, V The Commissioner Of C/O.Kamlesh Laddha, Plot S Income Tax-Exemption, No.11, Near Arvind Process Pune. Industrial Estate, Ichalkaranji, Maharashtra – 416115. Pan: Aacah5120M Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2024 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-Exemption, Pune U/Sec.80G Of The Act Dated 16.02.2024. The Ld.Cit(E) Dismissed The Application Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Application Is Time Barred. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Id 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 Heritage Youth Foundation [A]

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

…Covid-19 Pandemic. 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 6 Heritage Youth Foundation [A] of interpreting…

Jagbir Singh Nehra Prop. Shiv Shankar Fruit Company Jalandhar-I, Grain Market S.O Jalandhar, Jalandhar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3 Ludhiana, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 687/CHANDI/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Jun 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 687/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jagbir Singh Nehra Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Prop. Shiv Shankar Fruit Company, Central Circle-3, Jalandhar-1, Ludhiana Grain Market S.O. Jalandhar-1, Jalandhar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ayqps0736D अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 132

…seller, the very basis of making the addition on the basis of oral statement, ignoring the documentary evidence of the valid registration, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition in view of the judgment in the case of K.P. Varghese, reported in 131 ITR 597. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate that the documentary evidence had to be relied upon against the oral evidence as per binding judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawat Mull, reported in 87 ITR 349. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10 lacs on the basis of dump document, th…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Tvs Investments Lrd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Tvs Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly Known As Tvs Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. D. Praveen (JCIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. AR

…computation of capital gains. The starting point of computation is the full value of consideration received or accruing. What in fact never accrued or was never received cannot be computed as capital gains u/s 48. In the case of KP Vargheese vs ITO Ernakulam 131 ITR 597, the Supreme Court has held as under : "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 consideration. Moreover, to throw the burden showing that there is no understatement of consideration on the assessee would be to c…

Income Tax Officer W 1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…e argument of Mr. Sabharwal that judicial notice can be taken of the practice prevailing in the property market of not disclosing the full consideration for transfer of properties”. 13.48. 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 ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 68 of 104 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…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Vijayanagar vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…e argument of Mr. Sabharwal that judicial notice can be taken of the practice prevailing in the property market of not disclosing the full consideration for transfer of properties”. 13.48. 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 ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 68 of 104 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…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Hassan, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Songs, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…e argument of Mr. Sabharwal that judicial notice can be taken of the practice prevailing in the property market of not disclosing the full consideration for transfer of properties”. 13.48. 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 ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 68 of 104 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…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1163/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…e argument of Mr. Sabharwal that judicial notice can be taken of the practice prevailing in the property market of not disclosing the full consideration for transfer of properties”. 13.48. 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 ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 68 of 104 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…

M/S. S. Ramashandra Setty & Sons, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1156/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…e argument of Mr. Sabharwal that judicial notice can be taken of the practice prevailing in the property market of not disclosing the full consideration for transfer of properties”. 13.48. 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 ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 68 of 104 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…

Shri Dilip Devjibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Cirlce-1(2) Now the Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 101/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 50C

…see’s case as the said report is u/s 50(c) of the Act and the provision of Section 50(c) of the Act is not applicable in assessee’s case as assessee has sold stock in trade and not a capital asset. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of K. P. Varghese vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that the fair market value estimated by the valuation officer is more than the prevailing market value and filed the working of average sq.mt. rate based on comparable sales instances as well as by addition evidence placed valuation report of non-agricultural land located at Atladra, Vadodara. 6. The Ld. DR sub…

Deputy Commissioner of Inome Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Nama Seetaiah, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 454/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1523/Hyd/2019 & 393/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Nama Seetaiah Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(2) Pan:Aaupn8501F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Shri Nama Seetaiah Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaupn8501F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against, The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Cit (A) 12 Hyderabad Even Dated 22.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132

…the basis of the statement of the assessee, even though the assessee has retracted his statement with clear evidences. In this regard it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K.P. Varghese reported in (1981) 7 Taxmann.com 13 (S.C) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyana Sundaram (Supra). Therefore, we are of the considered view, that the Assessing Officer is erred in making the addition towards the alleged unaccounted investment in property in the case of the assessee. 24. To sum up, considering the facts and circumstan…

Nama Seetaiah, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 393/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1523/Hyd/2019 & 393/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Nama Seetaiah Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(2) Pan:Aaupn8501F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Shri Nama Seetaiah Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaupn8501F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against, The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Cit (A) 12 Hyderabad Even Dated 22.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132

…the basis of the statement of the assessee, even though the assessee has retracted his statement with clear evidences. In this regard it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K.P. Varghese reported in (1981) 7 Taxmann.com 13 (S.C) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyana Sundaram (Supra). Therefore, we are of the considered view, that the Assessing Officer is erred in making the addition towards the alleged unaccounted investment in property in the case of the assessee. 24. To sum up, considering the facts and circumstan…

Nama Seetaiah, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1523/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1523/Hyd/2019 & 393/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Nama Seetaiah Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(2) Pan:Aaupn8501F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Shri Nama Seetaiah Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaupn8501F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against, The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Cit (A) 12 Hyderabad Even Dated 22.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132

…the basis of the statement of the assessee, even though the assessee has retracted his statement with clear evidences. In this regard it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K.P. Varghese reported in (1981) 7 Taxmann.com 13 (S.C) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyana Sundaram (Supra). Therefore, we are of the considered view, that the Assessing Officer is erred in making the addition towards the alleged unaccounted investment in property in the case of the assessee. 24. To sum up, considering the facts and circumstan…

Sadhana Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Vasai, Palghar vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 57/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Unmesh NarvekarFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…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 indic…

Sadhana Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Palghar vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 56/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Unmesh NarvekarFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…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 indic…

ITO-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sangli Vaibhav Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3770/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)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: (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) "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 sec…

ITO-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sangli Vaibhav Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3769/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)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: (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) "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 sec…

ITO-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sangli Vaibhav Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3766/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)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: (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) "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 sec…

Avi Foundation, Nagpur vs. The Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax Pune, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1345/PUN/2023[NIL]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Adjournment application rejectedFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…ment 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…

Gender Lab Foundation, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 193/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :- Gender Lab Foundation, The Commissioner Of Flat No.2203-4, A Wing, Vs Income Tax, Tribeca Building, Hiranandani Exemption, Pune. Estate, G B Road, Chitalsar Manpada, B.O., Thane. Maharashtra – 400607. Pan: Aajcg4122B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Under Section 80G Of The Act, Dated 15.12.2023. The Ld.Cit(E) Dismissed The Application Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Application Is Time Barred. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground(S) Of Appeal : “1. The Cit E, Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant, Gender Lab Gender Lab Foundation [A]

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

…Lab Foundation [A] 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…

Vallabhdas Valji Jilha Vachanalaya, Jalgaon vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption - Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1423/PUN/2023[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1423/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :- Vallabhdas Valjijilha The Commissioner Of Vachanalaya, Vs Income Tax- 227, Navi Peth, Jalgaon, Exemption, Pune. Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Aabtv0802C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Under Section 80G Of The Act, Dated 26.10.2023. The Ld.Cit(E) Dismissed The Application Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Application Is Time Barred. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground(S) Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Thecommissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption) Pune Has Erred In Rejecting The Application In Form 10Ab Under Section 80G(5) Of The Vallabhdas Valji Jilha Vachanalaya [A]

Section 10Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

…Covid-19 Pandemic. 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 7 Vallabhdas Valji Jilha Vachanalaya [A] statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of inte…