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 367,347 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Surat vs. Shri Dhanesh M. Sanghvi, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 373/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.373/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Shri Dhanesh M. Sanghvi V Circle-3(1), Room No.112, 1Str Floor, Diam Jewels, 7/4155, Sunder S. Anavil Business Center, Adajan Char Rasta, Sadan, Galemandi, Suthar Faliya, Surat Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anxps 9521 M (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Singla– Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 269USection 50CSection 52

…l raised by the Revenue are as follows “1.Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 50C by relying upon the judgment in the case of KP Varghese vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 which deals with Section 52 of the Act pertains to computation of capital gain and C.B Gautam vs. UOI 199 ITR 530 which deals with provisions of section 269UD(1) of the Act where as the instant case deals with deeming provisions of Section 50C of the Act? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order…

Dilavar S Lakhani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Palghar

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5158/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyai.T.A. No.5158/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Vs. Ito, Ward-1 Dilavar S Lakhani C/O Raman S. Shah & Palghar Circle, Associates Palghar,Bidco Road A-102, Inderdarshan Chsl Palghar-401 504 Next To Jain Temple, Jambli Gully, Borivali(W) Mumbai-400 092 Pan : Abopl8935G (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By Department By Ms. Smita Verma-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08 .11. 2021

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…s- examination has also been rejected. It is settled law that in allegation of on many payment , revenue is required to prove the case with convincing material. This proposition is supported by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 and Kalyansundaram in (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC). Here revenue has failed to discharge the onus. 7. In the present case, in the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent, the addition is not sustainable. Hence, I set aside the order of authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 8. In the result, this appeal by the asse…

D.C.I.T. Cir. 7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Peninsula Land Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 3696/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3440/Mum/2009 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) M/S Peninsula Land Limited Dcit – 7(1), (Previously Known As Morarjee Realties Ltd.) 622, Aaykar Bhavan Peninsula Spenta, 2Nd Floor बिाम M. K. Marg Mathuradas Mills Compound, Mumbai – 400 020 / Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-5173-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 3696/Mum/2009 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Dcit – 7(1), M/S Peninsula Land Limited 622, Aaykar Bhavan (Previously Known As Morarjee Realties Ltd.) Peninsula Spenta, 2Nd Floor बिाम/ M. K. Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Mathuradas Mills Compound, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-5173-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri H. N. Singh – Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / : 05/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 27/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35D

…s received by the assessee with sale consideration computed. The consideration which never accrued or which was never received by the assessee could not be brought to tax as capital gains or business income as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in K.P.Varghese & Co. (131 ITR 597) and in various other decisions. The reliance of Ld. AO on the decision of McDowells and Co.(154 ITR 148) was out of context since the transactions, in the present case, were entered into within the framework of law and by no stretch of imagination, these could be considered as colorable device. As against this, the decision in UOI V/s Azadi Bach…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2248/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Bangalore Turf Club The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner of Post Box No. 5038, Income Tax, #52, Race Course Road, Circle-1 (1) (2), Bangalore – 560001. Vs. Bangalore. PAN: AABCB6217G APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Bangalore Turf The Deputy Club Ltd., Commissioner of Post Box No. 5038, Income Tax, #52, Race Course Circle-1 (1) (2), Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560001. PAN: AABCB6217G APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Padamchan…

Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1849/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Bangalore Turf Club The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner of Post Box No. 5038, Income Tax, #52, Race Course Road, Circle-1 (1) (2), Bangalore – 560001. Vs. Bangalore. PAN: AABCB6217G APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Bangalore Turf The Deputy Club Ltd., Commissioner of Post Box No. 5038, Income Tax, #52, Race Course Circle-1 (1) (2), Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560001. PAN: AABCB6217G APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Padamchan…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…lly lies on the department. The department cannot be asking the assessee to prove the negative. The department cannot force impossible burden of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is reiterated in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO, [1981] 4 SCC 137 wherein it was held that moreover to throw the burden of showing that there is no understatement of the consideration on the respondent would be attached and almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not receive any consideration beyond that declared by him. Therefore, the addition made by the AO u/s. 69 of th…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…lly lies on the department. The department cannot be asking the assessee to prove the negative. The department cannot force impossible burden of proving negative on the assessee. This legal proposition is reiterated in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO, [1981] 4 SCC 137 wherein it was held that moreover to throw the burden of showing that there is no understatement of the consideration on the respondent would be attached and almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not receive any consideration beyond that declared by him. Therefore, the addition made by the AO u/s. 69 of th…

Infor (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 198/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Dr.Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Srinivas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

…definitions into a prison house of obduracy, regardless of the varying circumstances in which, and myriad developments around which, these definitions are used. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), has 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 always have some purpose or object to accomplish, whose sympathetic a…

The DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4345/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2003-2004

Bench: Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dcit. Circle 7(1), Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Piramal Tax Healthcare Ltd.,) Range 7(3)(2), (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Limited

Section 143(3)

…, it is the case of the Revenue that the shares were sold due to family arrangement at very low prices and, hence, the loss is alleged to have been contrived. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13, wherein it is held that it is not sufficient for the Revenue to merely allege that the assessee has received more consideration than what is declared, but the Revenue must prove that the assessee had in fact received more consideration. The Tribunal has recorded a finding in the impugned order that the Revenue has not discharged the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

ITA 3559/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: And Shri Ashish Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha
Section 132Section 153A

…essee has actually received something over and above the consideration, which have been shown by it in its books of accounts and for this purpose, appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs., ITO (1981, 131 ITR 597). (v) During appellate proceedings, it has also submitted that the alleged entries of seized material, represent cash 62 ITA.No.3558 & 3559/Del./2016 M/s. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi. received on account of sale of silver and the cash has been deposited in the bank. The same has been accounted for, in the case of group company, M/s G…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

ITA 3558/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: And Shri Ashish Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha
Section 132Section 153A

…essee has actually received something over and above the consideration, which have been shown by it in its books of accounts and for this purpose, appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs., ITO (1981, 131 ITR 597). (v) During appellate proceedings, it has also submitted that the alleged entries of seized material, represent cash 62 ITA.No.3558 & 3559/Del./2016 M/s. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi. received on account of sale of silver and the cash has been deposited in the bank. The same has been accounted for, in the case of group company, M/s G…

Naina Saraf, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 271/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cuke Naina Saraf, Pr.Cit-2, Vs. B-93, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aevps 4665 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…fore assessing any income in the hands of the buyer (or in the hands of the seller for that reason). The law on this aspect has been explained in the context of S.52(2) of the Act by the Apex Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v/s ITO & Anr. (1981) 24 CTR 358/131 ITR 597 (SC). Similar view has been taken in the case of CIT v/s Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) holding that unless there is evidence that more consideration than what was stated in the document of transfer was received, the declared sale consideration was to be accepted. This has been followed in CIT v/s Raja Narendra (1994) 210 ITR 250…

Amra Ram Kumawat, Jodhpur vs. CIT, Range-1, Jodhpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 44/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2014-15 Amra Ram Kumawat, Vs. Cit, B-107, Shastri Nagar, Range-1, Jodhpur. Jodhpur. Pan No. Aavpk 9064 B

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amra Ram Kumawat, Vs. CIT, B-107, Shastri Nagar, Range-1, Jodhpur. Jodhpur. PAN No. AAVPK 9064 B Assessee by Shri Amit Kothari, CA & Shri Abhinav Kothari, CA Revenue by Smt. Sanchita Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 09/08/2021 Date of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Pr.CIT-1, Jodhpur dated 08/02/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 passed u/s 263 of…

The ITO 3(2), Indore vs. M/S. Apex Realities, Indore

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

ITA 912/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…ve that the assessee made some unaccounted investment in purchase of property. Our Observations are supported by the ratio laid down in the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. vs CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) 2. K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) 3. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) 4. Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 13. In view of the above facts in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge his onus and simply on guess work, presumption and suspicion, the a…

M/S. Apex Realities, Indore vs. The ITO 3(2), Indore

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

ITA 899/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…ve that the assessee made some unaccounted investment in purchase of property. Our Observations are supported by the ratio laid down in the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. vs CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) 2. K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) 3. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) 4. Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 13. In view of the above facts in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge his onus and simply on guess work, presumption and suspicion, the a…

Priya Happykumar Surya, Mumbai vs. ACIT 29 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5784/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2021AY 2015-16
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ms. Priya Happykumar Surya Vs. ACIT 29(2), Mumbai 1503, Richmond Travels Kautilya Bhavan Hiranandani Gardens Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 706 Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No. AAZPR5809D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Jayant Bhat Revenue by Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi Date of Hearing 14/06/2021 Date of Pronouncement 24/08/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.5784/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2015-16 arises out of the order by the…

DCIT Central 2, Indore vs. M/S Gautamswami Enterprises, Indore

ITA 805/IND/2018[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2012-13

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year 2012-13 DCIT, (Central-2) Indore : Appellant V/s M/s. Gautamswani Enterprises Indore : Respondent PAN AAIFG3350K Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantri, CIT-DR Assessee by Shri C.P. Rawka, & Venus Rawka, ARs Date of Hearing 11.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement 23.08.2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2012-13 is directed…

The ACIT, Central-2, Indore vs. Shri Mohanlal Chugh, Indore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

ITA 239/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

…sing Officer also assumed that the assessee had received the on-money component on the sale of flats belonging to the share of the developer. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) wherein it has been held that the onus lies on the Revenue to establish that an assessee has understated the consideration for transfer of an immovable property and unless such onus is discharged by the Revenue, there cannot be 11 Mohanlal Chugh & others any presumption as regard to the understatement. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held tha…

The ACIT, Central-2, Indore vs. M/S. Chugh Realty, Indore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

ITA 238/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

…sing Officer also assumed that the assessee had received the on-money component on the sale of flats belonging to the share of the developer. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) wherein it has been held that the onus lies on the Revenue to establish that an assessee has understated the consideration for transfer of an immovable property and unless such onus is discharged by the Revenue, there cannot be 11 Mohanlal Chugh & others any presumption as regard to the understatement. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held tha…

The ACIT, Central-2, Indore vs. Shri Nitesh Chugh, Indore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

ITA 122/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

…sing Officer also assumed that the assessee had received the on-money component on the sale of flats belonging to the share of the developer. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) wherein it has been held that the onus lies on the Revenue to establish that an assessee has understated the consideration for transfer of an immovable property and unless such onus is discharged by the Revenue, there cannot be 11 Mohanlal Chugh & others any presumption as regard to the understatement. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held tha…