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 366,470 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), 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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarawal, Kolkata

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

ITA 1498/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

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 Commssioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), 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 1497/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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 vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

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

ITA 1440/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

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…

Bombay Mercantile Co-Op Bank Ltd Employees Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-17(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6453/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…irstly, 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…

Bombay Mercantile Co-Op Bank Ltd Empoyees Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-17(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6452/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vijay JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…irstly, 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…

ACIT, CC, Agra vs. M/S. United Farm Product Private Limited, Agra

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 299/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhacit, Cc, Vs. M/S. United Farm Product Pvt. Ltd., 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002 (Agra) (Pan :Aaccu2505M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Deependra Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 04.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kanpur – 4 Dated 28.03.2025 For Assessment Year2022-23 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “L. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,71,37,934/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act Incurred For Construction Of Plant At Mewat, Haryana, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Company Itself Has Surrendered Amount Of Rs.41,40,35,700/- & Admitted To Take The Unexplained Expenditure At Rs.43,71,37,934/- Incurred In The 2 Construction Of Said Plant. Hence, The Addition Made By The Ao Is Based On Admittance By The Assessee, Which Is Corroborated By The Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition. Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessing Officer Has Passed The Assessment Order After Thoroughly Examining & Analysing The Seized Material & Proper Appreciation Of Facts Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 69C

…ument no addition can be made, as there are no corroborative evidence to place authenticity of the said loose sheet of paper so produced. These case laws are as follows: - Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 24 CTR (SC) 358/[1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) - Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central)-II v. D.K. Gupta [2008] 174 TAXMAN 476 (DELHI) - Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in case of Ashwini Kumar v. ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) - The Mumbai ITAT in case of S.P. Goyal v. Dy. CIT [2002J 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM) - Hyderabad bench of ITAT in case of Nagarjuna Construction…

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/272/2008HC Telangana28 Nov 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

…ITA Nos. 402/2005 & Others Page No.1 of 44 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on 06.02.2009 + ITA 402/2005 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX … Appellant - versus – M/S JINDAL EXPORTS LIMITED ... Respondent WITH + ITA 1474/2006 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX … Appellant - versus – M/S NESTLE INDIA LIMITED ... Respondent AND + ITA 708/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX … Appellant - versus – BRIJBASI ART PRESS LIMITED ... Respondent WITH + ITA 719/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX … Appe…

ACIT CC 2(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Aisha Dhiraj Gogia, Ahmedabad

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

ITA 1673/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

…ar : 2015-16 & Others 16 B. Merits—onus, evidence, and character of digital chats: 9.4. Even on merits, the impugned additions are not sustainable. It is a settled principle of law, enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC), that the onus to prove that an assessee has invested more than what is recorded in the books of accounts is squarely and heavily on the Revenue. This onus cannot be discharged by relying on suspicion, surmises, or uncorroborated third-party information. The WhatsApp chat relied upon by the AO is nothing but a "dumb document" which has no ev…

Nitta Gelatin India Limited, Kochi vs. Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 804/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. .......... Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aabck1582H] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle- 2(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

…r form No. 3CL, even if sent through CBDT, it has to go back to the prescribed authority. 37. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoinder referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) pointed out that marginal notes of section cannot be read to understand the intent of section. He further referred to old form placed at page 21 of Paper Book and the new form which is placed at page 22 of Paper Book and pointed out that differences between the two and stressed that the requirement to go into the expenditure incurred by the…

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

ITA 940/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

…at the conditions for taxability are fulfilled. The appellant cannot be expected to prove a negative fact, such as that it has not made any repayment out of its trust funds. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), wherein it was held that the onus is on the Revenue to prove the existence of taxable income and not on the assessee to disprove it. He argued that the AO has failed to bring any material to show that the repayment of loans was actually made from the trust’s accounts. 46.5 The learned AR submitted that the findings of the AO are based on co…

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

ITA 939/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

…at the conditions for taxability are fulfilled. The appellant cannot be expected to prove a negative fact, such as that it has not made any repayment out of its trust funds. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), wherein it was held that the onus is on the Revenue to prove the existence of taxable income and not on the assessee to disprove it. He argued that the AO has failed to bring any material to show that the repayment of loans was actually made from the trust’s accounts. 46.5 The learned AR submitted that the findings of the AO are based on c…

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Sneh Quality Spices Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1740/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 69B

…regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. 25 taxmann.com 210, and Agile Properties (P) Ltd. 45 taxman.com 512 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese 131 ITR 597 (SC) In view of above facts and judicial precedence, the addition made by the AO on account of difference in the valuation of cost of investment in building amounting to Rs.9,87,63,400/- is deleted. 8. Ground nos. 10 to 16: In these grounds the appellant has challenged the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.1,25,31,457/ on account of unexpla…

Sneh Quality Spices Private Limited, Khari Baoli vs. DCIT Circle 24(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1234/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 69B

…regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. 25 taxmann.com 210, and Agile Properties (P) Ltd. 45 taxman.com 512 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese 131 ITR 597 (SC) In view of above facts and judicial precedence, the addition made by the AO on account of difference in the valuation of cost of investment in building amounting to Rs.9,87,63,400/- is deleted. 8. Ground nos. 10 to 16: In these grounds the appellant has challenged the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.1,25,31,457/ on account of unexpla…

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)

…b) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT (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 in…

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)

…b) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT (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 in…

Avinissery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thrissur

ITA 569/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5Section 80Section 80P

…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…

Goodone Traders Private Limited, Delhi vs. CIT(A), Delhi

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

ITA 5591/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Goodone Traders Private Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Limited, 886A/47 (Appeals), Ward No. 6, Mehrauli Delhi Delhi- 1100 30 Pan: Aaacy2998Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA, Ms. VidhiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Goodone Traders Private Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Limited, 886A/47 (Appeals), Ward No. 6, Mehrauli Delhi Delhi- 1100 30 PAN: AAACY2998Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA, Ms. Vidhi Nangla, Adv. And Ms. Tanya, Adv. Department by: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date of pronouncement: 27.10.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal of assessee is against order dated 24.10.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 905/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

…tions resulting in undisclosed income for the appellant, cannot be relied upon for the purpose of assessments made pursuant to a Search and Seizure action. 6.3.14 It is appropriate to bring on record the observations of Apex court in the case of K.P. Varghese 131 ITR 597 where in it has been held that "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. To throw the burden of showing that there is no understatement of the consideration, on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negativ…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Chitravel Vetrimaran, Chennai

ITA 904/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

…tions resulting in undisclosed income for the appellant, cannot be relied upon for the purpose of assessments made pursuant to a Search and Seizure action. 6.3.14 It is appropriate to bring on record the observations of Apex court in the case of K.P. Varghese 131 ITR 597 where in it has been held that "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. To throw the burden of showing that there is no understatement of the consideration, on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negativ…