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 367,194 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

Income Tax Officer 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Orchid Buildcon Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4278/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Ito – 13(1)(2), M/S. Orchid Builtcon Pvt. 2Nd Floor, Ltd., Room No.225, B-202, Shah Arcade Ii, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ranisati Marg, M.K. Road, Near W.E.H., Mumbai - 400020 Malad East, Mumbai – 400 097 Pan: Aaaco9140N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito – 13(1)(2), M/S. Orchid Builtcon Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, B-202, Shah Arcade B, Room No.225, Vs. Rani Sati Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 097 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaco9140N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivram, A.R. Ms. Neelam Jadhav, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Uday Raj Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Uday Raj Singh, D.R

…sale receipts. The onus lies on the assessing officer to prove that the appellant had received unaccounted sale consideration from flat owners. This onus is not discharged by the AO. The appellant has relied on the decision in the case of K.P. Varghese Vs C1T 131 ITR 597 SC and also the decision of jurisdictional ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Sandhu Builders, ITA No. 5049/Mum/2012 dated 6-12-2013. The relevant portion of the decision in the case of M/s Sandhu Builders is as under: 21. The CIT(A), on the basis of these arguments and placing reliance on a number of decisions observed, "4.14 In view of the above discu…

M/S.Orchid Buildcon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3966/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Ito – 13(1)(2), M/S. Orchid Builtcon Pvt. 2Nd Floor, Ltd., Room No.225, B-202, Shah Arcade Ii, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ranisati Marg, M.K. Road, Near W.E.H., Mumbai - 400020 Malad East, Mumbai – 400 097 Pan: Aaaco9140N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito – 13(1)(2), M/S. Orchid Builtcon Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, B-202, Shah Arcade B, Room No.225, Vs. Rani Sati Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 097 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaco9140N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivram, A.R. Ms. Neelam Jadhav, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Uday Raj Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Uday Raj Singh, D.R

…sale receipts. The onus lies on the assessing officer to prove that the appellant had received unaccounted sale consideration from flat owners. This onus is not discharged by the AO. The appellant has relied on the decision in the case of K.P. Varghese Vs C1T 131 ITR 597 SC and also the decision of jurisdictional ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Sandhu Builders, ITA No. 5049/Mum/2012 dated 6-12-2013. The relevant portion of the decision in the case of M/s Sandhu Builders is as under: 21. The CIT(A), on the basis of these arguments and placing reliance on a number of decisions observed, "4.14 In view of the above discu…

M/S Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2240/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kannan Narayanan, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…question of binding nature of the CBDT circulars. After elaborately dealing with Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgments in the cases of Navnit Lal C. Jhaveri vs. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) and K.P. Varghese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), their Lordships concluded that the CBDT circulars inter alia can tone down the rigour of the law and such benevolent circulars are ITA Nos.2239 and 2240/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 16 binding on the field authorities. It cannot therefore be open to a Revenue authority to disregard the CBDT circular even if it deviates from the law—as long as it is…

M/S Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2239/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kannan Narayanan, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…question of binding nature of the CBDT circulars. After elaborately dealing with Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgments in the cases of Navnit Lal C. Jhaveri vs. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) and K.P. Varghese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), their Lordships concluded that the CBDT circulars inter alia can tone down the rigour of the law and such benevolent circulars are ITA Nos.2239 and 2240/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 16 binding on the field authorities. It cannot therefore be open to a Revenue authority to disregard the CBDT circular even if it deviates from the law—as long as it is…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Primal Projects (P) Ltd

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

ITA/196/2011HC Karnataka10 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 260ASection 80I

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.196 OF 2011 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. PRIMAL PROJECTS (P) LTD., NO.97/B, I FLOOR, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR, ADV., FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI,…

M/S Vijayeta Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 980/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2020AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 40A(3)

…(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…

DCIT ( OSD) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Safari Mercantile P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4566/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2001-02

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 254o

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2001-02 ACIT-2(3)(2), Safari Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Now Jt. CIT-(OSD)-2(3)(1), Vahanvati Conlt. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No. 552, 5th Floor, 2, Cressent Chambers, Tamarind Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Lane, Fort Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400023 PAN No. AAACS6043C Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR Assessee by: Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate Date of Hearing : 28/09/2020 Date of pronouncement : 07/10/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRAD…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. L.T. Foods Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4046/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi. And L.T. Foods Ltd., ACIT Unit No. 134, First Floor, Vs. Central Circle-19, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre New Delhi New Delhi. PAN No. AACCA3104G Appellants Respondents Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Smt. Deepashree Rao, CA Shri Vibhu Gupta, CA Reven…

M/S L.T. Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4164/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi. And L.T. Foods Ltd., ACIT Unit No. 134, First Floor, Vs. Central Circle-19, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre New Delhi New Delhi. PAN No. AACCA3104G Appellants Respondents Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Smt. Deepashree Rao, CA Shri Vibhu Gupta, CA Reven…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Infosys Technologies Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/385/2012HC Karnataka16 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115WSection 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.385 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(4), C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD., PLOT NOS.44 & 97A, 3RD CROSS P.O. ELECTRONIC CITY HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560100. ... RESPONDENT (BY…

The Director of Income Tax Exemptions vs. Iskcon Charities

In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals

ITA/415/2011HC Karnataka15 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260A

…12 (2018) 7 SCC 810, ‘CIRCULAR NO.5-P(LXX-6) OF 1968, DATED 19.06.1968, ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARNATAKA-I VS. SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF ST.ANNE’, (1984) 146 ITR 28 (KAR), and ‘K.P.VARGHESE VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM AND ANOTHER’, (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC). 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the assessee is a charitable institution registered under Section 12A of the Act. The Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ANDHRA CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE’, (1965) 55 ITR 722 held that an object be…

M/S. Green Touch Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1028/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263

…that actual consideration was more than that recorded by the assessee and since books of account had not be rejected, there was no basis of making the estimated addition. Reliance is further placed in the case of K.P. Varghese Vs . ITO, Ernakulam and Another 131 ITR 597 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court held that assessee must be shown to have received more than what is declared or disclosed ~Y him as consideration and only then addition can be sustained. Reliance is also further placed in the case of Balbir Singh Vs. ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) where it has been opined that expenses can’t be disallowed on estimation basis…

Abhishek Dhanotia, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(1), Indore

ITA 655/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…or his authorized agent as 'admission' but, apart from exceptional cases (as contained in Section 21), such a statement cannot be proved by or on their behalf”. 16. Further, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghese [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), assessee cannot be made to prove the negative or to do an impossible act. It was stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 13 – “…………………………It is a well-settled rule of law that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always on the revenue and the second condition being as much a condition of taxability as…

ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vgc Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 7004/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mrs. SamathaFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…cion of highest degree cannot take place of evidence - DCIT v. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil, (Mum) (Trib) (ITA No. 6727/M/2012 dt.20/8/2014. Additions cannot be made merely on assumptions or presumptions or surmises or conjectures (i) K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 579 (SC); (ii) CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC); (iii) CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.1, (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC); (iv) Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Mere suspicion, no matter howsoever strong, is not sufficient to treat the purchases as bogus. Case Laws for Reference DY. CIT v. ADINATH INDUSTRIES (2001) 252 ITR…

M/S Yokogawa India Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/87/2012HC Karnataka04 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.87 OF 2012 BETWEEN: M/S YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD., NO.96, ELECTRONICS CITY COMPLEX HOSUR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 100. (REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD TREASURY AND TAXATION AND COMPANY SECRETARY SR.B.SHIVADUTT AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O SRI.B.K.BHANDARY) ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.CHYTHANYA K.K., ADV.,) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX L.T.U BENGALURU ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.)…

M/S. Nokha Agro Services, Bikaner vs. Pr. CIT, Bikaner

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Km Stone, Nh-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffn 8164 R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…transportation of food grains by any stretch of imagination. The provisions of the Act have to be interpreted in a way that absurdity and mischief is avoided. In this regard he referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of KP Varghese Vs. ITO, 131 ITR 597. In fact a particular word and expression has to be given purposive construction and in this regard he referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of R&B Falcon Pvt. Ltd, 301 ITR 309. He also referred to various other decisions where principles of interpretation of statutes have been given. He referred to the contention of the Ld. C…

Sofina S.A., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7241/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhansofina S.A. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Rue De L‟Industrie 31, Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) B-1040, Brussels, Room No. 1624, 16Th Floor, Vs. Belgium Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aakcs3013Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate & Shri. Manish Kanth Respondent By: Shri G.N. Makwana, D.R

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate & Shri. ManishFor Respondent: Shri G.N. Makwana, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.7241/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 Sofina S.A. The Asst. Commissioner Income Tax (I.T)-4(2)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Sofina S.A. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Rue de L‟Industrie 31, Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) B-1040, Brussels, Room No. 1624, 16th Floor, Vs. Belgium Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 PAN – AAKCS3013Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate & Shri. Manish Kanth Respondent by: Shri G.N. Makwana, D.R Date of Heari…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4950/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

…go must not come in the way of rectifying a mistake that we have committed in past and the only relevant question that we have to ask ourselves is whether it is permissible in law to rectify the mistake so committed. In the case of K P Verghese vs ITO [(1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC)], Hon‟ble Supreme Court were dealing with a situation in which the construction of newly inserted statutory provisions came up for consideration. It was in this context that Their Lordships observed that the “circulars of the CBDT are, as we shall presently point ITA No. 4949 and 4950/Mum/15 Assessment year: 2006-07 Page 10 of 17 out, bind…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4949/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

…go must not come in the way of rectifying a mistake that we have committed in past and the only relevant question that we have to ask ourselves is whether it is permissible in law to rectify the mistake so committed. In the case of K P Verghese vs ITO [(1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC)], Hon‟ble Supreme Court were dealing with a situation in which the construction of newly inserted statutory provisions came up for consideration. It was in this context that Their Lordships observed that the “circulars of the CBDT are, as we shall presently point ITA No. 4949 and 4950/Mum/15 Assessment year: 2006-07 Page 10 of 17 out, bind…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2165/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

…go must not come in the way of rectifying a mistake that we have committed in past and the only relevant question that we have to ask ourselves is whether it is permissible in law to rectify the mistake so committed. In the case of K P Verghese vs ITO [(1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC)], Hon’ble Supreme Court were dealing with a situation in which the construction of newly inserted statutory provisions came up for consideration. It was in this context that Their Lordships observed that the “circulars of the CBDT are, as we shall presently point out, binding on the tax department in administering and executing the provision…