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 367,181 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

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 169/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…re on stronger footing as there was no statement recorded from the vendor that higher consideration than shown in the ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 10 -: 170/19 sale deed was paid. Even, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 had laid down the proposition of law that the burden of proving understatement of consideration is always on the Revenue. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Devi, (2010) 328 ITR 604 held that primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue. Only when such burden is di…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 168/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…re on stronger footing as there was no statement recorded from the vendor that higher consideration than shown in the ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 10 -: 170/19 sale deed was paid. Even, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 had laid down the proposition of law that the burden of proving understatement of consideration is always on the Revenue. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Devi, (2010) 328 ITR 604 held that primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue. Only when such burden is di…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 167/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…re on stronger footing as there was no statement recorded from the vendor that higher consideration than shown in the ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 10 -: 170/19 sale deed was paid. Even, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 had laid down the proposition of law that the burden of proving understatement of consideration is always on the Revenue. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Devi, (2010) 328 ITR 604 held that primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue. Only when such burden is di…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 166/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…re on stronger footing as there was no statement recorded from the vendor that higher consideration than shown in the ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 10 -: 170/19 sale deed was paid. Even, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 had laid down the proposition of law that the burden of proving understatement of consideration is always on the Revenue. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Devi, (2010) 328 ITR 604 held that primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue. Only when such burden is di…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 165/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…re on stronger footing as there was no statement recorded from the vendor that higher consideration than shown in the ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 10 -: 170/19 sale deed was paid. Even, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 had laid down the proposition of law that the burden of proving understatement of consideration is always on the Revenue. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Devi, (2010) 328 ITR 604 held that primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue. Only when such burden is di…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 164/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…re on stronger footing as there was no statement recorded from the vendor that higher consideration than shown in the ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 10 -: 170/19 sale deed was paid. Even, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 had laid down the proposition of law that the burden of proving understatement of consideration is always on the Revenue. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Devi, (2010) 328 ITR 604 held that primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue. Only when such burden is di…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai vs. C Nilavathy, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 131/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…re on stronger footing as there was no statement recorded from the vendor that higher consideration than shown in the ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 10 -: 170/19 sale deed was paid. Even, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 had laid down the proposition of law that the burden of proving understatement of consideration is always on the Revenue. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Devi, (2010) 328 ITR 604 held that primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue. Only when such burden is di…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai vs. C Nilavathy, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 130/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…re on stronger footing as there was no statement recorded from the vendor that higher consideration than shown in the ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 10 -: 170/19 sale deed was paid. Even, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 had laid down the proposition of law that the burden of proving understatement of consideration is always on the Revenue. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Devi, (2010) 328 ITR 604 held that primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue. Only when such burden is di…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai vs. C Nilavathy, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 124/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…re on stronger footing as there was no statement recorded from the vendor that higher consideration than shown in the ITA No.124, 130-131, 164- :- 10 -: 170/19 sale deed was paid. Even, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 had laid down the proposition of law that the burden of proving understatement of consideration is always on the Revenue. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Devi, (2010) 328 ITR 604 held that primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue. Only when such burden is di…

DCIT 5(1), Indore vs. Shri Mahesh Banasal, Indore

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue and Assessee

ITA 499/IND/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahesh Bansal, Income Tax 5(1), 44, Manish Bagh, Indore Agrawal Nagar, Indore

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…as held in the case of Prakash Chand Nahata vs. CIT (2008) 3012 ITR 134 (M.P) Reliance was placed by the assessee on the following judgments; a) Pr. CIT V/s Pukhraj Soni Appeal No. ITA 53 of 2017 (MP) order dated 06.02.19. b) K. P. Varghese Vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 (S.C.), c) Addl. CIT Vs. Miss. Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom.). d) Dy. CIT Vs. Mahendra Ambalal Patel (2010) 40 DTR 243 (Guj). e) Heirs & L.Rs of Late Laxman Bhai S. Patel V s.CIT (2008) 327 ITR 290 (Guj). f) Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 Mahesh Bansal ITA No.499/2018 & C.O.No.10/Ind/2019 (P&H): g) CIT Vs. N…

M/S Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, Both the C

ITA 84/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

…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 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 beneficial to the assessee. Thus, where a DTA…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Cae Flight Training Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, Both the C

ITA 63/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

…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 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 beneficial to the assessee. Thus, where a DTA…

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Incomne Tax-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 3107/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasad: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth
Section 10ASection 10A(8)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 70Section 71Section 72

…. 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has defended the instant action of the Commissioner to revise the assessment u/s 263 of the Act and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 to say that the Circulars issued by the CBDT are binding on the Department and thus, the Commissioner has rightly exercised his jurisdiction to issue direction to revise the assessment order in compliance with the Circular of the CBDT. 9. In the context of the rival stands, we may now examine the manner in which the Commissioner has justified th…

Sadhvi Securities P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circler-5, New Delhi

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

ITA 1047/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Sadhvi Securities P. Ltd., Vs Acit, 13/34, Wea, Arya Samaj Road, Central Circle-5, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aahcs7130D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.P. Gupta & Shri Anunav Kumar, Advocates Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15Th January, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-24, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Share Trading. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.910/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Introduced Share Capital By Issuing 1800000 Equity Shares Of Rs.10 Each At A Premium Of Rs.90 Per Share Aggregating To Rs.18 Crore In The Balance Sheet As On 31.03.2014. Since The Assessee Has Charged Very High Premium On The Shares So Allotted, The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Furnish Complete

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

…decided on 27.08.2018. iii) Vora Financial Services P. Ltd. v . ACIT, ITA No.532/Mum/2018 decided on 29.06.2018. iv) DCIT v. Dr. Rajan Pai (2016) 48 ITR (Trib) 170 (Bangalore). v) Extracts of certain decisions of Supreme Court vi) K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC). vii) CIT v. JH Gotla (1985) 156 ITR 323 (SC). viii) Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. v. CIT (2011) 61 DTR 309. ix) CIT V. Modipon Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 106 (HC) x) CIT v. Modipon Ltd., Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. (2018)400 ITR 1 (SC) xi) Pr. CIT v. IDMC Ltd., (2017) 393 ITR 441 (Guj.) xii) Pr. CIT v. IDMC Ltd., (2017) 10 TMI 732 (SC). xiii) CIT…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Eskay Constrctions P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3722/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eskay Constructions Income Tax, Central Cir-8(4) Pvt. Ltd., 16Th Floor, ‘B;Wing Mumbai 6Th Floor, Room No.658, Mittal Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aaace1223E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…essee had actually received more money from the buyer than as disclosed in his return of income. For this proposition, we find that the ld AR had rightly placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Varghese v. ITO reported in 131 ITR 597(SC) wherein it was held as under:- 13. Thus, it is not enough to attract the applicability of sub-section (2) that the fair market value of the capital asset transferred by the assessee as on the date of the transfer exceeds the full value of the consideration declared in respect of the transfer by not less than 15 per cent of the value so declar…

Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT TDS 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 6625/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor &For Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar
Section 194BSection 201Section 201(1)

…the race or comes second or third, as the case may be. It was contended that the CBDT Circulars are binding on the Departmental authorities, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of K.P.Verghese vs. 5 Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 and Ellerman Lines Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 913. In fact, the very same Circular No. 240 dated 17.05.1978 came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Investment Trust of India Ltd. (2003) 264 ITR 506 (Mad) and it was held to be binding on the Departmental authorities. Accordingly, it has been explained that in…

Shree Sattar Taluka Sarvamangal Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-2, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 799/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2019AY 2013-14
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…ITA No. 799/Ahd/2017 Shree Sattar Taluka Sarvamangal Trust Vs. ITO Assessment year: 2013-14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar, VP and Ms. Madhumita Roy, JM] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shree Sattar Taluka Sarvamangal Trust ............…………......Appellant Sarvamangal Hall, Vivekanand Chowk, Near Auda Garden, Mamnagar, Ahmedabad – 380 052 [PAN : ABFFS 3695 D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) ...........................Respondent Ward 2, Ahmedabad Appearances by: SN Soparkar, for the Appellant Mudit Nagpal, for the Respondent Date of concl…

Futuristic Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit (Central), Gurugram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2009-10] M/S Futuristic Sales [P] Ltd Vs. The Pr. C.I.T Flat No. 97, Sfs, First Floor Central Ashok Vihar, Phase – Iv Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No: Aaacf 6597 N [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

…ollowing judicial pronouncements: 56 ITR 198 (SC) Navnit Lai C. Javeri vs. K. K. Sen i) 82 ITR 913 (SC) Ellerman Linces Ltd. vs. C1T ii) 237 ITR 889 (SC) CIT vs. UCO Bank Ltd. iii) 247 ITR 128 (SC)Taper Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of iv) Central Excise 131 ITR 597 (SC) K. P. Varghese vs. ITO v) 183 ITR 1 (SC) Keshavji Ravji and Co. vs. CIT vi) 252 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala vii) It would be evident from the aforesaid instruction that surrender 8.5 by itself cannot be made a basis to make addition more particularly when in the instant case, the reason for surrender has also been stated i.e. in…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nirmak Kumar Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 288/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…her rate. The rejection of assessee's explanation for charging a lower sale price cannot be jettisoned without positively showing that the assessee received a higher sale price. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in context of section 52, in K.P Varghese v. ITO [198] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13, has held that: Sub-s. (2) of s. 52 can be invoked only where the consideration 89 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT for the transfer has been understated by the assessee or, in other words, the consideration actually received by the assessee in more than is declared or disclosed by him and…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 287/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…her rate. The rejection of assessee's explanation for charging a lower sale price cannot be jettisoned without positively showing that the assessee received a higher sale price. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in context of section 52, in K.P Varghese v. ITO [198] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13, has held that: Sub-s. (2) of s. 52 can be invoked only where the consideration 89 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT for the transfer has been understated by the assessee or, in other words, the consideration actually received by the assessee in more than is declared or disclosed by him and…