K.P. Varghese v. ITO

131 ITR 597Supreme Court of India1981#44 most cited

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

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

989

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2026.

Also referred to as

K.P. Varghese v. ITO · 131 ITR 597 · difference in valuation · unexplained investment · Valuation Officer report · deletion of addition · Assessing Officer enquiry · Section 69 · Section 69A · Section 115BBE · no addition on suspicion · understatement of consideration

Also reported as

7 Taxmann 13

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 292CSection 69Section 153CSection 115BBESection 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 5(8)section 52closely held companyaccumulated profitsdumb documentssection 132(4a)section 131(1a)section 260section 69bsection 292csection 292bsection 292

Judgments citing K.P. Varghese v. ITO

Mohanji Bharat Welfare Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 2617/MUM/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 11(1)(c)Section 80G

…on 24.02.2023 i.e. 147 days delay and the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application and cancelled the provisional approval the Ld. Coordinate Bench condoned the delay while relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) as referred in the decision of ITAT Jodhpur Bench in ITA No. 278/Jodh/2023 order dated 10.11.2023 wherein it was held that the words 'within six months of commencement of its activities' is to be interpreted that it applied for those trusts/ institutions which have not started charitable activities at the time of obtaining provisional regist…

Maharashtra Ex-Servicemen Corporation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 603/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandramaharashtra Ex-Servicemen Cit(Exemption), Pune Corporation Ltd. Vs. 2Nd Floor, Raigad Building, Ghorpadi, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aadcm4072C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)

…s in the nature of business, and the onus of demonstrating that fact is on the revenue authorities. The reason for this onus is simple; nobody can be expected to prove a negative, as was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghese Vs ITO [(1981) 131 ITR 597], and the assessee cannot, therefore, be asked to prove that the assessee is not carrying on an activity with business motive. A perusal of the impugned order, however, indicates that the only reason for which the assessee is held to be pursuing business activity is charging of fees and there is no other legally sustainable finding to support tha…

Amit Banthia, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2325/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ballusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 292CSection 69

…24 of 2015 dated 31.12.2015 which requires that proceedings against a person other than the searched person must be under section 153C of the Act. 6.4 The ld. AR also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese vs. ITO reported in 131 ITR 597 and Dhakeswari Cotton Mills reported in 26 ITR 775 to stress that the burden of proving understatement of consideration is on the Revenue and cannot be discharged by mere suspicion. According to him, the Revenue has failed to bring any clinching evidence of cash payment. 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the…

Chandulal Banthia, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2324/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ballusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 292CSection 69

…24 of 2015 dated 31.12.2015 which requires that proceedings against a person other than the searched person must be under section 153C of the Act. 6.4 The ld. AR also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese vs. ITO reported in 131 ITR 597 and Dhakeswari Cotton Mills reported in 26 ITR 775 to stress that the burden of proving understatement of consideration is on the Revenue and cannot be discharged by mere suspicion. According to him, the Revenue has failed to bring any clinching evidence of cash payment. 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the…

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016
For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

…t be as aids to the construction of a statute, undoubtedly throw light on the intent and design of the legislature and indicate the scope and purpose of the legislation itself." It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 as under- ……………….. In this case of the appellant also, it is admitted fact in this case that there is a violation of sec. 13(1)(c) of the Act therefore, the Assessing Officer was correct in invoking the provisions of sec. 13(1)(c) of the Act and denying exemption to the assessee u/s 11 of the Act. Further, Section 13 has the title…

Surya Singhal, Kota vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 928/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…l Board of Direct Taxes is binding on authorities. The reliance is also placed on following judgement wherein it was held that circulars issued by the Board are binding: - (i) NavnitLal 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 BachooAndolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) Thus, in the above case laws including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that wherever CBDT has issued instructions/circulars to relieve hardships the same are binding nature. In view of this it is submitted t…

Dewan Chand, Delhi vs. CIT(Appeals), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1721/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Dewan Chand, Vs. Cit (Appeals), S-11, Greater Kailash-Ii, Coimbatore New Delhi Pin – 1100 48 Pan :Aaifm0046J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dewan Chand, Vs. CIT (Appeals), S-11, Greater Kailash-II, Coimbatore New Delhi PIN – 1100 48 PAN :AAIFM0046J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/Shri TPS Kang & Ayush Sharma, Advs. Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.09.2025 ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal of the assessee is against order dated 15.02.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals…

National Association for the Blind, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 2490/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2026-27

For Appellant: Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. D.R
Section 11Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…e have to interpret the relevant provisions. To interpret the provisions, we shall refer to the Budget Speech of the Hon’ble Finance Minister. 5 M/s. National Association For The Blind 7.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghese Vs. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) has observed as under regarding use of Speech of a Minister as a tool in interpretation: Quote , “ Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. No 1 Auto Finance, Karur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 658/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:656 To 658/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1 Auto Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aahfn 3793 J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:622 & 633/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Help Line Motor Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaffh 3971 E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri.R.Venkata Raman, Ca & Shri.R.S.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri.R.Venkata Raman, CA &
Section 132Section 143(3)

…unaccounted money by the seller by any form of evidence. Under these circumstances, based on paper jottings as conclusive evidence on money cannot be brought to tax as income from undisclosed sources.” 6.3.14 Further in the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that “the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always on the revenue and that throwing the burden of showing that there is no under-statement of consideration on the assesse would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not recei…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. No 1 Auto Finance, Karur

ITA 657/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri.R.Venkata Raman, CA &
Section 132Section 143(3)

…unaccounted money by the seller by any form of evidence. Under these circumstances, based on paper jottings as conclusive evidence on money cannot be brought to tax as income from undisclosed sources." 6.3.14 Further in the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that “the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always on the revenue and that throwing the burden of showing that there is no under-statement of consideration on the assesse would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not recei…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. No 1 Auto Finance, Karur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 656/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:656 To 658/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1 Auto Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aahfn 3793 J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:622 & 633/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Help Line Motor Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaffh 3971 E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri.R.Venkata Raman, Ca & Shri.R.S.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri.R.Venkata Raman, CA &
Section 132Section 143(3)

…unaccounted money by the seller by any form of evidence. Under these circumstances, based on paper jottings as conclusive evidence on money cannot be brought to tax as income from undisclosed sources.” 6.3.14 Further in the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that “the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always on the revenue and that throwing the burden of showing that there is no under-statement of consideration on the assesse would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not recei…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Help Line Motor Finance, Karur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 633/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:656 To 658/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1 Auto Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aahfn 3793 J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:622 & 633/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Help Line Motor Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaffh 3971 E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri.R.Venkata Raman, Ca & Shri.R.S.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri.R.Venkata Raman, CA &
Section 132Section 143(3)

…unaccounted money by the seller by any form of evidence. Under these circumstances, based on paper jottings as conclusive evidence on money cannot be brought to tax as income from undisclosed sources.” 6.3.14 Further in the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that “the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always on the revenue and that throwing the burden of showing that there is no under-statement of consideration on the assesse would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not recei…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Help Line Motor Finance, Karur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 622/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:656 To 658/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1 Auto Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aahfn 3793 J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:622 & 633/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Help Line Motor Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaffh 3971 E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri.R.Venkata Raman, Ca & Shri.R.S.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri.R.Venkata Raman, CA &
Section 132Section 143(3)

…unaccounted money by the seller by any form of evidence. Under these circumstances, based on paper jottings as conclusive evidence on money cannot be brought to tax as income from undisclosed sources.” 6.3.14 Further in the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that “the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always on the revenue and that throwing the burden of showing that there is no under-statement of consideration on the assesse would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not recei…

ITO 41(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepika Anil Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 1885/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…assesse must be informed of the materials and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it. Suspicious cannot take place the evidence 1. DCIT v. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil, (Mum) (Trib) (ITA No. 6727/M/2012 dt.20/8/2014 2. K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 579 (SC); 3. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC); 4. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.', (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC); 5. Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT', (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC Income assessed without evidence is bad-in-law. Income assessed by revenue without supporting material is not justified. 1. CIT V. BHUVANENDRA 303 ITR 235 (MAD.) 2. VINOD SOLANK…

Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF), Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1000/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 68Section 69A

…nd must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it. Suspicious cannot take place the evidence 1. DCIT v. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil, (Mum) (Trib) (ITA No. 6727/M/2012 dt.20/8/2014 29 Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF)., Mumbai. 2. K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 579 (SC); 3. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC); 4. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.', (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC); 5. Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT', (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Income assessed without evidence is bad-in-law. Income assessed by revenue without supporting material is not justified. 1. CIT V. BHUVANENDRA 303 ITR 235 (MAD.) 2. VINOD SOLA…

DCIT Central Circle 05, Delhi vs. Deepak Kothari, Kanpur

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

ITA 1834/DEL/2021[20017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ction 48 of Income Tax Act. Moreover, income earned by the appellant on the amount received in December, 2007 has been declared by the appellant in respective years and tax has been paid thereon. 4.1.15 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Vargehse vs ITO 131 ITR 597 held as follows: "15 .... It may be noted that section 52 is not a charging section but is a computation section. It has to be read along with section 48 which provides the mode of computation and under which the starting point of computation is "the full value of the consideration received or accruing". What in fact never accrued or was never re…

Deepak Kathari, Kanpur vs. ACIT, CC-5, New Delhi

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

ITA 1205/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ction 48 of Income Tax Act. Moreover, income earned by the appellant on the amount received in December, 2007 has been declared by the appellant in respective years and tax has been paid thereon. 4.1.15 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Vargehse vs ITO 131 ITR 597 held as follows: "15 .... It may be noted that section 52 is not a charging section but is a computation section. It has to be read along with section 48 which provides the mode of computation and under which the starting point of computation is "the full value of the consideration received or accruing". What in fact never accrued or was never re…

DCIT Central Circle-2(2) Chennai, Chennai vs. Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Pallipalayam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 629/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:628 & 629/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Income Tax, Vs. 5/6/183, Govindampalayam Central Circle - 2(2), Alampalayam, Pallipalayam 638 008. Chennai. [Pan: Abcpt-7700-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Two Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai Both Dated 10.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Common Issue Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. The Ita Nos.628 & 629/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…ddy and Shri. K. Rathinam) recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 08.12.2016 that no questions have been posed to them at all regarding the seized material allegedly containing details of payments made to various persons. In the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always on the revenue and that throwing the burden of showing that there is no under- statement of consideration on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not rec…

Shailesh Goyal, Tonk vs. ACIT, Centre Circle Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 496/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…ne through the orders of authorities below, but they failed to establish any corroborative evidence against the assessee. In the light of discussion above and relying on the land mark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case K.P. Varghese vs. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), without any hesitation, we hold that addition based on Deaf and Dumb documents are not sustainable, and as such addition made by the AO and further confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to be deleted. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms. The Order is pronounced in the open court on the 29th day of July 2025…

Shri Mahaveer Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Alagur vs. Income Tax Officer, Alagur

ITA 6/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 18Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…irstly, the marginal note to section 80P which reads "Deduction in respect of income of co- operative societies" is important, in that it indicates the general "drift" of the provision. This was so held by this Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 as follows: "9. This interpretation of sub-section (2) is strongly supported by the marginal note to Section 52 which reads "Consideration for transfer in cases of understatement". It is undoubtedly true that the marginal note to a section cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the section but it can certainly be relied upon as indic…