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

ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi vs. Lalman Yadav, Gurgaon

ITA 7061/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Lalman Yadav Vs. Acit, Flat No. 401-402, Central Circle-16 Mahalaxmi Cghs Ltd., New Delhi Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Pan : Aazpy5305R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…t by such assessee, has to disregarded for the purposes of assessments to be framed pursuant to search and seizure action. It shall not be out to place to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 24 CTR (SC) 358/[1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the fictional receipt cannot be deemed to be a receipt in the absence of any cogent material to support the factum of actual receipt. The 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) upheld the order of the tribunal wherein it was held that Ad-Hoc/…

Lalman Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi

ITA 5869/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Lalman Yadav Vs. Acit, Flat No. 401-402, Central Circle-16 Mahalaxmi Cghs Ltd., New Delhi Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Pan : Aazpy5305R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…t by such assessee, has to disregarded for the purposes of assessments to be framed pursuant to search and seizure action. It shall not be out to place to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 24 CTR (SC) 358/[1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the fictional receipt cannot be deemed to be a receipt in the absence of any cogent material to support the factum of actual receipt. The 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) upheld the order of the tribunal wherein it was held that Ad-Hoc/…

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

…f the 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.” 31. 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…

DCIT, Circle 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2017-

ITA 1047/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 90

…e construed in harmony with each other," and this principle was reiterated in another coordinate bench decision in the case of DCIT Vs Boston Consulting Group Pte Ltd [(2005) 94 ITD 31 (Mum)]. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [(1981) 131 ITR 597 (S.C.)] and even in the context of the interpretation of taxing statutes, have held that the task of interpretation is not a mechanical task and, quoted with approval; Justice Hand's observation that "it is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary but to remember that statutes…

DCIT, Cir 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2017-

ITA 1046/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 90

…e construed in harmony with each other," and this principle was reiterated in another coordinate bench decision in the case of DCIT Vs Boston Consulting Group Pte Ltd [(2005) 94 ITD 31 (Mum)]. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [(1981) 131 ITR 597 (S.C.)] and even in the context of the interpretation of taxing statutes, have held that the task of interpretation is not a mechanical task and, quoted with approval; Justice Hand's observation that "it is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary but to remember that statutes…

Shri Hingulambika Education Society, Gulbarga vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1, Kalburgi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1126/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Phalguna Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…ITA No.1126/Bang/2022 Shri Hingulambika Education Society, Gulbarga IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Hingulambika Education Society Sy.No.55/2, Bhavsar Nagar ITO (Exemptions) Sedam Road Ward-1 Vs. Gulbarga 585 106 Kalburgi Karnataka PAN NO : AAFTS4816F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Phalguna Kumar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT…

M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…r Market Value of the capital asset which is the subject matter of transfer under the following two specific circumstances. These provisions had come up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that mere difference between the consideration actually received and the market value of the consideration by itself would C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 not justify the provisions of sec.52. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that under-statement of consideration cannot be assumed because the fair market valu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…r Market Value of the capital asset which is the subject matter of transfer under the following two specific circumstances. These provisions had come up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that mere difference between the consideration actually received and the market value of the consideration by itself would C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 not justify the provisions of sec.52. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that under-statement of consideration cannot be assumed because the fair market valu…

Pratap Singh Yadav, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7 Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1898/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17 Prtatap Singh Yadav, Versus Dcit, Central Circle 7, 510, Sector 31-32A, Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aahpy8387M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Virendra Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Prtatap Singh Yadav, Versus DCIT, Central Circle 7, 510, Sector 31-32A, Delhi. Gurgaon. PAN: AAHPY8387M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate & Sh. Aman Garg, C.A. Revenue by : Sh. Virendra Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 18.05.2023 Date of pronouncement : 30.05.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against order dated 21.06.2022 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-24, New De…

ACIT, CC-14, Delhi vs. Rama Pashu Aahar Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above and

ITA 1862/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., Versus Acit, Central Circle 14, C/O Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi. Extension, Part-1, New Delhi Pan: Aaccr1144B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle 14, Versus Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., New Delhi. C/O Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., Versus ACIT, Central Circle 14, C/o RRA Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi. Extension, Part-1, New Delhi PAN: AACCR1144B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle 14, Versus Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., New Delhi. C/o RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sr. D…

Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, CC-14, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above and

ITA 1456/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., Versus Acit, Central Circle 14, C/O Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi. Extension, Part-1, New Delhi Pan: Aaccr1144B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle 14, Versus Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., New Delhi. C/O Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., Versus ACIT, Central Circle 14, C/o RRA Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi. Extension, Part-1, New Delhi PAN: AACCR1144B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle 14, Versus Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., New Delhi. C/o RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sr. D…

Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd (M/S Serco Bpo Pvt. Ltd )., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly 15. In result the appeal of both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 2815/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

…1 ITAs 2814 & 2815/Mum/2022 Teleperformance Global Service s Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH ―J‖, MUMBAI BEFORE AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.2814 & 2815/Mum/2022 (A.Ys 2017-18 & 2018-19) Teleperformance Global Services Pri vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax- vate Limited, Teleperformance Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.573, 5th Floor, Aayakar Towers, Plot CST No 1406, A/28, Mindspace Goregaon West, Mumbai Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Suburban, Maharashtra 400 064 Mumbai-400 020 PAN : AABCV2572L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee repr…

Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd (M/S Serco Bpo Pvt. Ltd )., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly 15. In result the appeal of both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 2814/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

…1 ITAs 2814 & 2815/Mum/2022 Teleperformance Global Service s Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH ―J‖, MUMBAI BEFORE AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.2814 & 2815/Mum/2022 (A.Ys 2017-18 & 2018-19) Teleperformance Global Services Pri vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax- vate Limited, Teleperformance Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.573, 5th Floor, Aayakar Towers, Plot CST No 1406, A/28, Mindspace Goregaon West, Mumbai Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Suburban, Maharashtra 400 064 Mumbai-400 020 PAN : AABCV2572L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee repr…

M/S. Maya Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1026/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…e that actual consideration was more than that recorded by the assessee and since books of account had not be rejected, there was no basis of making the estimated addition. Reliance is further placed in the case of K.P. Varghese V. ITO, Ernakulam and Another 131 ITR 597 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court held that assessee must be shown to have received more than what is declared or disclosed by him as consideration and only then addition can be sustained. Reliance is also further placed in the case of Pioneer Himudyog P. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (TTAT Kolkata) I.T.A. No.338/Kol/2017 where it h…

Shri Raj Kumar ( M/S Radhika Sales Corp ), Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 3 (3), Amritsar

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

ITA 195/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250oSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raj Kumar (M/s Radhika Sales Vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Corp) Dhab Wasti Ram, Amritsar. Amritsar, 143001. [PAN:AAX[L4922E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA Respondent by Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 11.04.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…

St. John Freight Systems Pvt. Ltd., Tutucorin vs. DCIT, CC-1, Madurai

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2900/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80I

…osed income, it is precisely for this reason that new claim of deduction or allowance cannot be made in the completed assessments. It is a settled principle of law that what cannot be done directly can also not be done indirectly. K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13, It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case that “it is well recognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible that absurdity and mischief may be avoided.” From the perspective department, if anassessee is allowed to claim an allowance, deduction etc. u/s 153A not claimed…

St. John Freight Systems Ltd., Tuticorin vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Madurai

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2899/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80I

…osed income, it is precisely for this reason that new claim of deduction or allowance cannot be made in the completed assessments. It is a settled principle of law that what cannot be done directly can also not be done indirectly. K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13, It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case that “it is well recognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible that absurdity and mischief may be avoided.” From the perspective department, if anassessee is allowed to claim an allowance, deduction etc. u/s 153A not claimed…

St. John Freight Systems Ltd., Tuticorin vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Madurai

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2898/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80I

…osed income, it is precisely for this reason that new claim of deduction or allowance cannot be made in the completed assessments. It is a settled principle of law that what cannot be done directly can also not be done indirectly. K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13, It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case that “it is well recognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible that absurdity and mischief may be avoided.” From the perspective department, if anassessee is allowed to claim an allowance, deduction etc. u/s 153A not claimed…

St. John Freight Systems Ltd., Tuticorin vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Madurai

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 188/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80I

…osed income, it is precisely for this reason that new claim of deduction or allowance cannot be made in the completed assessments. It is a settled principle of law that what cannot be done directly can also not be done indirectly. K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13, It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case that “it is well recognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible that absurdity and mischief may be avoided.” From the perspective department, if anassessee is allowed to claim an allowance, deduction etc. u/s 153A not claimed…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 2/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण गुवाहाटी पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्ुअल कोटु] [Virtual Court] श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited........................Appellant [PAN: AACCM 3317 R] Vs. ACIT, Circle-15(1), Kolkata.………….......................Respondent I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ACIT, Circle-15(1), Kolkata...............................…