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 367,368 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 vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Pune

ITA 1645/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Ms. Divya Bajpai, CIT
Section 14ASection 28Section 43BSection 44

…ntended by the legislation. likewise in the case of CIT v S. Teja Singh 35 ITR 408 it was viewed that construction which defeats the very object sought to be achieved by the legislature must be avoided. likewise in a landmark decision of K.P. Varghese VS. ITO 131 ITR 597 the Hon'ble Court has expressed that there must not be an absurd or unjust interpretation. In an appeal propounding the theory of equity the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. J.H. Golta 156 ITR 323 has said that the statutory construction should result in equity rather than injustice. On the basis of a plethora ~f judgment of several Ho…

Shri Ashok Dharendra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

…officers of the Department are bound by the circulars of the board. Further in the following cases the Courts have held that circulars issued by the Board are binding: - (i) Navnit Lal C Javeri Vs. Sen (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) (ii) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) (iii) UCO Bank vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) (iv) Union of India vs. Azadi Bachoo Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706(SC) 22. Although, ld CIT-DR has stressed on the fact that the presumption of correctness is attached to the statement recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act and even the A.O. has categorically mentioned that page No. 1 to 4 of Annexure-A2 w…

Rakesh Vaid, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ration sot the permissible in law to draw adverse inference deposits and withdrawals. Only in some of against the assessee. Reliance is also placed on the cases there is a vague mention of the the following judgments: purpose for which the payment has been i) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese v. ITO made. There is no mention as to the deposits ii) 316 ITR 46 (Del) CIT v. Shakuntala Devi the fund in the account of the assessee, and iii) 335 ITR 572 (Del) CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal in most cases, the party and purpose for iv) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar. which the payment has been made. Therefore, the bank…

M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

ITA 69/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…(Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso toSection 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which wehave 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 wellrecognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be soconstrued, if possible that absurdity and mischief may be avoided." 29. The argument of the counsel for the appellant if taken to itslogical end would mean that even in cases where the appeal arisingout of the completed assessment has been decided by…

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

ITA 117/JPR/2021[ 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…(Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso toSection 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which wehave 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 wellrecognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be soconstrued, if possible that absurdity and mischief may be avoided." 29. The argument of the counsel for the appellant if taken to itslogical end would mean that even in cases where the appeal arisingout of the completed assessment has been decided by…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी सुधांशु "ीवा"तव, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 310/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt Charu Aggarwal बनाम The DCIT H.No. 123-C, Model Town Central Circle Patiala-147001- Punjab Patiala-147001, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAKPA9875F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी सुधांशु "ीवा"तव, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 310/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt Charu Aggarwal बनाम The DCIT H.No. 123-C, Model Town Central Circle Patiala-147001- Punjab Patiala-147001, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAKPA9875F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result additional ground raised by the assessee vide additional ground number 3 and ground number 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tata Chemicals Limited Tax 2(3), Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Respondent By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR
Section 41Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM Dy. Commissioner of Income Tata Chemicals Limited Tax 2(3), Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACT4059M Appellant by : Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR Respondent by : Shri Milind Chavan, DR Date of hearing: 20.12.2021 Date of pronouncement : 16.02.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is recalled by order of the coordinate bench in Miscellaneous Application number 136/M/2021 in ITA number 2439/M/2011 for…

Sh. Hafizuddin Hazi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3690/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 150(2)Section 151(2)Section 154

…lable on record to suggest the declared consideration as incorrect, therefore, the declared consideration cannot be doubted only on the basis of the report of the DVO. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:- (i) K.P. YARGHESE VS. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC); (ii) CIT VS. PUNEET SABHARWAL 338 ITR 485 (DEL); (iii) CIT VS. SADHNA GUPTA 352 ITR 595 (DEL); (iv) CIT VS. NAVEEN GERA 328 ITR 516 (DEL); (v) CIT VS. SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI 316 ITR 46 (DEL); & (vi) TEEN MURTI PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO - ITA No.2281/DEL/2010 A.Y.06-07. 16. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out various defects in the r…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Jas Infraspace Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 547/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 131Section 133ASection 150Section 292CSection 34Section 69B

…ose papers in the course of survey containing certain financial transactions cannot ipso facto represent income of the assessee. 67. 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] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 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. 67.1 Similarly the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT v. D.K. Gupta [2008] 174 Taxman 476 upheld the order of the tribunal wherein it was held that Ad-Hoc/Dumb Documents without any corroborative…

Jas Infraspace Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 131Section 133ASection 150Section 292CSection 34Section 69B

…ose papers in the course of survey containing certain financial transactions cannot ipso facto represent income of the assessee. 67. 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] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 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. 67.1 Similarly the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT v. D.K. Gupta [2008] 174 Taxman 476 upheld the order of the tribunal wherein it was held that Ad-Hoc/Dumb Documents without any corroborative…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Jas Infra Space Private Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2131/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 131Section 133ASection 150Section 292CSection 34Section 69B

…ose papers in the course of survey containing certain financial transactions cannot ipso facto represent income of the assessee. 67. 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] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 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. 67.1 Similarly the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT v. D.K. Gupta [2008] 174 Taxman 476 upheld the order of the tribunal wherein it was held that Ad-Hoc/Dumb Documents without any corroborative…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Jas Infra Space Private Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2130/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 131Section 133ASection 150Section 292CSection 34Section 69B

…ose papers in the course of survey containing certain financial transactions cannot ipso facto represent income of the assessee. 67. 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] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 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. 67.1 Similarly the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT v. D.K. Gupta [2008] 174 Taxman 476 upheld the order of the tribunal wherein it was held that Ad-Hoc/Dumb Documents without any corroborative…

M/S. Asaria Lalji Vador, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Asaria Lalji Vador V. Office Of Pcit – 27 C-21, Mahavir Jyot Room No. 401, 4Th Floor Opp. Odeon Shopping Centre Tower No. 6 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400077 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aabpv0149A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…. vi. The same SC again reiterated the position in the case of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., 87 ITR 407 confirming that in the case of sales, all that one has to see is what is the consideration bargained for. vii. Once again the SC in the case of K P Varghese, 131 ITR 597 held as under; ‘A fair and reasonable construction of section 52(2) would be to read into it a condition that it would apply only where the consideration for the transfer is understated or, in other words, the assessee has actually received a larger consideration for the transfer than what is declared in the instrument of transfer and it would ha…

ITO (Exemption), Ward, Surat vs. Gujarat Hira Bourse, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 190/SRT/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 254(1)

…t is well settled law that the speech of the Finance Minister is very much relevant to interpret the provision of law. Reliance in this case is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of K.P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) wherein Apex Court inter alia observed as under:- “…….the speech made by the mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought to be remedied by the legislation and the object and purpose for which the legislation is enacted. This is an…

ITO (Exemption) Ward, Surat vs. Gujarat Hira Bourse, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 189/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 254(1)

…t is well settled law that the speech of the Finance Minister is very much relevant to interpret the provision of law. Reliance in this case is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of K.P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) wherein Apex Court inter alia observed as under:- “…….the speech made by the mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought to be remedied by the legislation and the object and purpose for which the legislation is enacted. This is an…

The ACIT 4(1), Indore vs. Shri Ashwin Mehta, Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 352/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147

…of ,2007 294 ITR 0049 (SC) have laid down the ratio that: - "The burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction is that of the revenue. The Tribunal had given factual finding and inter alia held that the Apex Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction is that of the revenue. The revenue, in the instant case, had failed to discharge its duties and the Assessing Officer did not conduct any independent enquiry relating to the value of the property purchased. He merely relied upon the statement given by the seller. If he…

The ACIT 4 (1), Indore vs. M/S Sharthak Real Built P Ltd, Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 351/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147

…of ,2007 294 ITR 0049 (SC) have laid down the ratio that: - "The burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction is that of the revenue. The Tribunal had given factual finding and inter alia held that the Apex Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction is that of the revenue. The revenue, in the instant case, had failed to discharge its duties and the Assessing Officer did not conduct any independent enquiry relating to the value of the property purchased. He merely relied upon the statement given by the seller. If he…

DCIT, Central-2, Bhopal vs. M/S Signature Builders and Coloniser, Bhopal

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

ITA 219/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

Section 69

…Signature Coloniser/Builder 1 ITA 218 and 219 of 2020 अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Virtual hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Central-II, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/s. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal PAN – ABXFS 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Central-II, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/s. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal PAN – ACCFS 9498 Q … Respondent Revenue by Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR Assessee by Shri S.S. Deshpande, CA Date of Hearing 13.1…

DCIT-Central-2, Bhopal vs. M/S Singnature Colonisers, Bhopal

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

ITA 218/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

Section 69

…Signature Coloniser/Builder 1 ITA 218 and 219 of 2020 अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Virtual hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Central-II, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/s. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal PAN – ABXFS 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Central-II, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/s. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal PAN – ACCFS 9498 Q … Respondent Revenue by Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR Assessee by Shri S.S. Deshpande, CA Date of Hearing 13.1…