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.

How many judgments cite K.P. Varghese v. ITO?

989 judgments on BharatTax cite K.P. Varghese v. ITO (131 ITR 597), spanning 2000 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does K.P. Varghese v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 292C, Section 69, Section 153C.

K.P. Varghese v. ITO (131 ITR 597)

ACIT, CC-4, Jaipur vs. Shri Mukut Behari Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 152/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

…(Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 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." 29. The argument of the counsel for the appellant if taken to its logical end would mean that even in cases where the appeal arising out of the completed assessment has been decided…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle -5, Pune vs. Serum Institute of India Pvt Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 323/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 10ASection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)

…n of provisions of sub- section (7) of section 10AA would result in absurdity and, therefore, Purposive Interpretation should be adopted. In this regard, he 40 placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, 131 ITR 597 (SC). Without prejudice to the above, he submits that the agreement entered into with UNICEF by the respondent-assessee satisfied the requirement of export outside India, inasmuch as, the supplies of goods made to UN Agency are regarded as “Deemed Exports” under the Foreign Trade Policy. In this regard, he also took us through the clause 8.2 of E…

Flytech Aviation Limited, Secunderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1712/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Flytech Aviation Limited, Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Secunderabad. Income Tax, Circle 1(3), Pan : Aaacf3053D. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca Revenue By: Shri Solge Jost Kottaram Date Of Hearing: 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, CAFor Respondent: Shri Solge Jost Kottaram

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 69B

…arned Assessing Officer is in accordance with the law. 13. In rebuttal, the ld.AR had also relied upon the following decisions to state that the valuation done by the Customs Authorities cannot be doubted by the Assessing Officer. 1. K.P. Verghese Vs. ITO - 131 ITR 597 (SC), 2. CIT Vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram – 294 ITR 49 (SC). 3. CIT Vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes – 262 ITR 354 (Kerala High Court) 4. Asma Estates and Investments Pvt Ltd. Vs. DCIT – ITA 782/Hyd/2020. 5. The Lok Prakashan Ltd. Vs. JCIT – ITA 1394/Ahd/2009. 6. DCIT Vs. Value Labs LLP – ITA 305/Hyd/2015. 12 7. ITO Vs. Happy Homes and Hotels Private Limited – IT…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…mphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 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." 29. The argument of the counsel for the appellant if taken to its logical end would mean that even in cases where the appeal arising out of the completed assessment has been decide…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Central Circle-3 vs. M/S N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd., Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 54/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…mphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 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." 29. The argument of the counsel for the appellant if taken to its logical end would mean that even in cases where the appeal arising out of the completed assessment has been decide…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd., Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 53/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…Products Pvt. Ltd. The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 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." 29. The argument of the counsel for the appellant if taken to its logical end would mean that even in cases where the appeal arising out of the completed assessment has been decided…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Holdings Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 190/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Principal Commissioner of Development Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax-2, Jaipur Office No. 506 Anchor Mall, Third Floor, Anchor Mall, Ajmer Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAGCR 4665 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Responde…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Incometax-1, Jaipur

ITA 191/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us On The Following Grounds In This Appeal;

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 191/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Principal Commissioner of Industries Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax-1, Jaipur 603 Elements Mall, 6th Floor Ajmer Road, Jaipur- 302021. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHCR 1374 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh v…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 190/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Principal Commissioner of Development Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax-2, Jaipur Office No. 506 Anchor Mall, Third Floor, Anchor Mall, Ajmer Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAGCR 4665 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Responde…

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkr Housing Development Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2135/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR

Section 245D(4)

…ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA Nos. 2131 & 2135/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years 2014–15 & 2012–13) M/s Thakkar Housing ACIT 2(3)(1) Development Pvt. Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6067C M/s Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. ACIT 2(3)(1) Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6069…

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Apana Ghar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2134/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR

Section 245D(4)

…ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA Nos. 2131 & 2135/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years 2014–15 & 2012–13) M/s Thakkar Housing ACIT 2(3)(1) Development Pvt. Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6067C M/s Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. ACIT 2(3)(1) Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6069…

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Apna Ghar Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2133/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR

Section 245D(4)

…ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA Nos. 2131 & 2135/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years 2014–15 & 2012–13) M/s Thakkar Housing ACIT 2(3)(1) Development Pvt. Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6067C M/s Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. ACIT 2(3)(1) Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6069…

ACIT 2(3) 1, Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2132/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR

Section 245D(4)

…ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA Nos. 2131 & 2135/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years 2014–15 & 2012–13) M/s Thakkar Housing ACIT 2(3)(1) Development Pvt. Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6067C M/s Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. ACIT 2(3)(1) Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6069…

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Housing Developement Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2131/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR

Section 245D(4)

…ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA Nos. 2131 & 2135/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years 2014–15 & 2012–13) M/s Thakkar Housing ACIT 2(3)(1) Development Pvt. Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6067C M/s Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. ACIT 2(3)(1) Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6069…

Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 520/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner Of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. Pan: Aadcc1248A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 12/04/2022 By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 2(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 253Section 92CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. CAE Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. PAN: AADCC1248A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved, CA : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue by CIT DR-1 Date of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022…

Poonawalla Shares & Securities Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Circle-4, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 380/PUN/2020[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…be carried forward and set off. It is submitted that it is a settled position in law that the Circulars issued by the Board are binding on all its officers and such officers do not have the authority to argue contrary to the same. [KP Varghese vs. ITO (1981) (131 ITR 597) (SC), Ellerman Lines Ltd. vs. CIT (197D (82 ITR 913) (SC)]. 18. Furthermore, in the case of Nomura (supra), the Tribunal has also noted the fact that the Department’s appeal before the Bombay High Court in the case of Raptakos (supra) was dismissed on account of non-prosecution by the Department (ITA 357/2016) (Bom). In this regard, it is submi…

M/S. Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35

…d purposive interpretation of sections granting incentives to the assesses: Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT, 196 1TR 188 (SC) • CIT vs. U. P. Cooperative Fedn. Ltd. 176 ITR 435 (SC.) • CIT v. Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 177 1TR 431 • (SC) K. P. Varghese v. ITO, 131 ITR 597 (SC) • IT(TP)A No.475/Bang/2020 Page 6 of 12 v) In view of above, the company has claimed a deduction of Rs. 409,135,945 as deduction u/s 32AC which includes a sum of Rs. 258,807,773 being the deduction pertaining to new assets installed during FY 2013-14 but acquired before 01.04.2013. From the above, it is clear that the AO has not granted de…

Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6875/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 195Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…t an assessee can prove his honesty, because honesty, in practical terms, only implies lack of dishonesty, and proving not being dishonest is essentially proving a negative, which, as Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of KP Varghese v. ITO 119811 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13, is almost impossible. However, as the expression good faith is used alongwith 'due diligence, which refers to 'proper care, it is also essential that not only the action of the assessee should be in good faith, i.e., honestly, but also with proper care. An act done with due diligence, in our humble understanding, would mean an act do…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2595/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…sty, in practical terms, only implies lack M/s. Sitel India Limited ITA no. 2595/Mum./2014 of dishonesty, and proving not being dishonest is essentially proving a negative, which, as Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of KP Varghese v. ITO 119811 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13, is almost impossible. However, as the expression good faith is used alongwith 'due diligence, which refers to 'proper care, it is also essential that not only the action of the assessee should be in good faith, e, honestly, but also with proper care. An act done with due diligence, in our humble understanding, would mean an act done…

ACIT, Circle- 8(2), New Delhi vs. Esaote Asia Pacific Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7881/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…see can prove his honesty, because honesty, in practical terms, only implies lack of dishonesty, and proving not being dishonest is essentially proving a negative, which as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of K.P. Verghese vs ITO reported in 131 ITR 597 is almost impossible. However, as the expression ‘good faith’ is used along with ‘due diligence’ which refers to ‘proper care’. It is also essential that not only the action of the assessee should be in good faith but also with proper care. An act done with due diligence would mean the act done with as much as care as a prudent person would take…

K.P. Varghese v. ITO

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing K.P. Varghese v. ITO

ACIT, CC-4, Jaipur vs. Shri Mukut Behari Agarwal, Jaipur

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle -5, Pune vs. Serum Institute of India Pvt Ltd., Pune

Flytech Aviation Limited, Secunderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Central Circle-3 vs. M/S N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd., Sriganganagar

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd., Sriganganagar

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Holdings Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Incometax-1, Jaipur

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkr Housing Development Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Apana Ghar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Apna Ghar Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ACIT 2(3) 1, Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Housing Developement Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

Poonawalla Shares & Securities Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Circle-4, Pune

M/S. Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai

ACIT, Circle- 8(2), New Delhi vs. Esaote Asia Pacific Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi