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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nitin 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 286/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
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…

Shri Nirmak Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, 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 126/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…

Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, 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 125/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…

Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, 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 124/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
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…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…evant (page 8 of AO). It is submitted that the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the real investment exceed the investment shown in the account books of the assessee. That the reliance is placed on the following judgments: i. K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) ii. CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485 iii. CIT vs. Shankuntala Devi, 316 ITR 46 iv. CIT vs. Suraj Devi, 328 ITR 604 v. CIT v. Vinod Singhal (I.T.Appeal No. 482 of 2010 dated 5-5-2010) vi. 226 ITR 344 Smt. Amar Kumari Surana vs. CIT vii. CIT vs. Smt. Vindhavasini Devi Case ITA No. 265 of 2008, HC (All) 7.1 It is submitted that merel…

Nrs Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 5910/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 132(4)Section 153C

…earch has not been conducted by the Department upon the assessee, it cannot be presumed that there are unaccounted asset in the hands of the assessee. In fact, such presumption is quite preposterous. As held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.P. Verghese (131 ITR 597), when these allegation of on money receipt, the burden is upon the Revenue to prove the same. In the present case we find that Revenue has failed to discharge the burden 12. In this regard we also place reliance on Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of P.V. Kalyansundaram (Civil Appeal No. 4262 of 2007 vide order 7 NRS Developers dated 1…

ACIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Associated Hospitality Ltd Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1348/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-12(1)(1), M/S Associated Hospitality & Room No.223, 02Nd Floor, Developers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Techniplex-1, Off. Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca7847P Shri Anadi Varma Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Rajesh S. Shah

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ended by the Legislature, the Court must modify the language used by the Legislature or even "do some violence" to it, so as to achieve obvious intention of the Legislature. Reference is made to decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of K.P.Varghese Vs.ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC). 4.6 The other angle given by the assessee company for the said loan of Rs. 15 crores advanced by the BRIPL in form of commercial expediency because the amount paid to Kotak Bank would have been forfeited, cannot come to rescue of the assessee. The assessee company has bid for the Andheri Plot and after being declared successful, it was awar…

Pratap N. Rajgor, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals as well as the cross-objections are dismissed

ITA 5273/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.5273/Mum/2018 A.Y: 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimsan &
Section 115JSection 131Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…: a.CIT, Salem vs. S.Khader Khan Son, Appeal (Civil) Nos. 13224 of 2008 & 6747 of 2012 b. Mumbai ITAT in the case of Maruti Impex 2016(5) TMI 104) c. Global Stock 4DTR 172, Mumbai d. Mumbai Bench K G Sharma 133 ITD 112 e. Apex curt in the case of K R Verghis 131 ITR 597 f. Lalchand Bhagat 37 ITR 288 (SC) Mangalam Drugs & Organics Ltd. g. Shiva Kami Co. 159 ITR 71 where their lordship disapproved the system of making additions in the assessment on mere suspicision and surmises. I have gone through the CIT Selam vs. S Khader Khan Son judicial decision wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the following fi…

Shri Gopal Soni, Mandsaur vs. Addll. CIT, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

ITA 714/IND/2017[02-03]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…Gopala Krishna Soni ITA No.712 to 714/Ind/2017 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.712 to 714/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2000-01 to 2002-03 Shri Gopal Krishna Soni, ACIT, Jeevaganj, Vs. Ratlam Near Bhuriya Mahadev Mandir, Mandsaur (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN AEMPS0957E Revenue by Shri K.G. Goel, Sr.DR Assessee by Shri Ravi Sharda, Advocate Date of Hearing 10.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned thre…

Shri Gopal Krishna Soni, Mandsaur vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

ITA 713/IND/2017[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…Gopala Krishna Soni ITA No.712 to 714/Ind/2017 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.712 to 714/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2000-01 to 2002-03 Shri Gopal Krishna Soni, ACIT, Jeevaganj, Vs. Ratlam Near Bhuriya Mahadev Mandir, Mandsaur (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN AEMPS0957E Revenue by Shri K.G. Goel, Sr.DR Assessee by Shri Ravi Sharda, Advocate Date of Hearing 10.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned thre…

Shri Gopal Krishna Soni, Mandsaur vs. Commissioner of Inco Me-Tax, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

ITA 712/IND/2017[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…Gopala Krishna Soni ITA No.712 to 714/Ind/2017 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.712 to 714/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2000-01 to 2002-03 Shri Gopal Krishna Soni, ACIT, Jeevaganj, Vs. Ratlam Near Bhuriya Mahadev Mandir, Mandsaur (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN AEMPS0957E Revenue by Shri K.G. Goel, Sr.DR Assessee by Shri Ravi Sharda, Advocate Date of Hearing 10.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned thre…

Shri Mukesh N. Desai, Surat vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2376/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ram Lal Negi & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 143Section 147Section 50C

…orities have determined higher market value. The AO has not made any enquiry. The Mukesh N Desai v. DCIT-2, Surat /I.T.A. No. 2376/AHD/2014/A.Y: 2006-07 Page 6 of 21 learned counsel for the assessee placing reliance in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC)/ 7 Taxman 13 (SC) wherein it was observed as “We must, therefore, hold that sub-section (2) of section 52 can be invoked only where the consideration for the transfer has been understated by the assessee or, in other words, the consideration actually received by the assessee is more than what is declared or disclosed by him and the burden of…

Smt. Kundan Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 2061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT_D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2061/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2009-2010 Smt. Kundan Singh, The ACIT, C-6 & 7/6529, Vasant Central Circle-25, Kunj, New Delhi. vs., New Delhi. PAN AAXPS1361F (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.1797/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2009-2010 The ACIT, Smt. Kundan Singh, Central Circle-4 [erstwhile C-6 & 7/6529, Vasant CC-25], Room No.331, vs., Kunj, New Delhi. ARA Centre, Jhandewalan PAN AAXPS1361F Extn., New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Kundan Singh, New Delhi

Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1797/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT_D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2061/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2009-2010 Smt. Kundan Singh, The ACIT, C-6 & 7/6529, Vasant Central Circle-25, Kunj, New Delhi. vs., New Delhi. PAN AAXPS1361F (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.1797/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2009-2010 The ACIT, Smt. Kundan Singh, Central Circle-4 [erstwhile C-6 & 7/6529, Vasant CC-25], Room No.331, vs., Kunj, New Delhi. ARA Centre, Jhandewalan PAN AAXPS1361F Extn., New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sunil Haripant Pophale, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 448/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “ए” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.322/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/o Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. PAN: AAHPP4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.448/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 447/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “ए” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.322/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/o Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. PAN: AAHPP4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.448/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा…

Sunil Haripant Pophale, Nashik vs. Joint Commissioner of Inocme-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 322/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “ए” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.322/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/o Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. PAN: AAHPP4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.448/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा…

Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 301/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “ए” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.322/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/o Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. PAN: AAHPP4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.448/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा…

Poojashish Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1120/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT)
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…(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…

Vijay Kumar Seth, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 33(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 5244/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Vijay Kumar Seth, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 8, Vasant Enclave, Tax, Circle-33(1), New Delhi-110057 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxps6514Q Assessee By : Sh. Karan Kumra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. Karan Kumra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 55A

…t value, the reference to the DVO was illegal and void ab initio. Similar findings on the principles relied above were also made by the following cases: " Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer 11981] 7 Taxman 13 (SC)/[1981 ] 131 ITR 597 (SC)/[1981 / 24 CTR 358 (SC) " Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46 (Delhi)/[2009] 224 CTR 79 (Delhi) " Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Manoj Jain [2007] 9 Vijay Kumar Seth 163 Taxman 223 (Delhi)/[2006] 287 ITR 285 (Delhi)/[2006] 2…