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, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jindal Pipes Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4924/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. N. K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Ved Jain & Ashish Chadha, CAs
Section 48Section 50CSection 52

…erred appeal against this addition and the Ld. CIT(A), while noticing the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Mahesh Kumar 196 Taxman 415 (Del) which was rendered following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in KP Verghese vs. ITO 131 ITR 597, held that the addition on the basis of valuation report of DVO was not justified and consequently deleted the addition of Rs.4,39,77,238/- based on valuation report of DVO. 4. Challenging the impugned order assessee preferred this appeal before us stating that the four sale instances of the entire property which was sold in parts by the assesse…

Mahesh Gordhandas Garodia, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5098/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Shri Maheshkumar Gordhandas Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Garodia, Income Tax 22(1) 149/156, Garodia Shopping Centre, Mumbai Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai – 400 077 Pan/Gir No.Aacpg2906R Appellant) .. Respondent) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahesh S Garodia, Income Tax 27(2) 149/156, Garodia Shopping Mumbai Centre, Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai – 400 077 Pan/Gir No.Aacpg2906R Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue By Shri Purushottam Tripuri Date Of Hearing 10/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 12/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

Section 143(3)Section 55A

…k-keeping an entry is made about a hypothetical income, which does not materialize." In this case Rs.20 crores cap in the agreement is not income in the subject assessment year. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that one has to read capital gain provision along with computation provision and the starting point of the computation is "the full value of the consideration received or accruing". In this case the amount of Rs.20 crores is neither received nor it has accrued to the respondent-assessee during the subject assessment year. We are infor…

Commissioner of Income vs. M/S Tatra Vectra Motors Ltd

ITA/191/2012HC Karnataka10 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260Section 260ASection 92CSection 92C(2)

…rstood that the Explanatory Notes to the provisions of a Finance Act passed by the Parliament seeks to explain the substance of the provisions of the Act as intended by the Legislature. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P Varghese v ITO 131 ITR 597 (Ker) emphasized the sanctity of the statements contained in the Explanatory Notes of the provisions and stated that the interpretation placed in such documents is binding interpretation of law. The contents of the Corrigendum are quite inexplicable. Notwithstanding the aforesaid and without going Date of Judgment 10-07-2018 I.T…

Shri Sharad Agrawal, Indore vs. The JCIT Range-4, Indore

In the result, all these three appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed

ITA 153/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2009-10

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nvalidation of a law, the Court would be well justified in departing from the so-called golden rule of construction so as to give effect to the object and purpose of the enactment by supplementing the written word if necessary.” In K.P.Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) the Supreme Court observed as follows: “The task of interpretation of a statutory enactment is not a mechanical task. It is more than a mere reading of mathematical formulae because few words possess the Sharad Agrawal & Rakesh Agrawal precision of mathematical symbols. It is an attempt to discover the intent of the legislature from the la…

Mohd Rizwan Mohd Kallan Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1141/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmd. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Ito 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7Th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’S Co-Operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 Pan: Agjpk2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Ar) Date Of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (AR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 253Section 274Section 3

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Md. Rizwan Mohd Kallan ITO 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’s Co-operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. LBS Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 PAN: AGJPK2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR) Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (AR) Date of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. The insta…

Shah Realtors, Thane vs. ACIT Cir (4), Thane

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh.B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Shah Realtors Acit Circle -4, A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It 2Nd Floor, Parshwa Park, Road No. 16-Z, Padmavati, Beside Oriental Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Bank Of Commerce, Thane-400604. Ambadi Road,Vasai(W), Thane-401202 Pan: Abhfs7795J Appellant Respondent : Dr. K. Sivaram Sr. Advocate With Appellant By Sh. Sashank Dandu Advocate Respondent By : Sh. Suman Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner (Appeals)-3, Thane, Dated 14Th January 2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Engaged In The Business Of Builder & Developer. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Relevant Assessment Year On 22Nd Of September 2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.61,10,630/-. The Assessment Was Completed On 20Th February 2015 Under Section 143(3). The Assessing Officer While Passing Assessment Order Besides The Other Additions Made Addition Of Rs.2,52,65,247/- On Account Of Difference Of Sale Price Between Building M/S Shah Realtors No. 3 & Building No. 10, Sold During The Financial Year In Shah

For Respondent: Dr. K. Sivaram Sr. Advocate with
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253

…s DCIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 156(Mumbai Tri), Aum Shiv Enterprises Vs ACIT ITA No. 6985 /M/2010 dated 24.08.2013, Neelkamal Realtors and Erectors Vs DCIT ITA No.1143/M/2013 dated 16.08.2013 and decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in K.P. Varghese Vs ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597(SC). 4. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of the authorities below. The ld. DR for the revenue further submits that there was about 75% difference in the rate of price of building No. 3 and 10. The assessee failed to substantiate the reason when both the building 4 M/s Shah Realtors were sold within a short span o…

Smt.K.B.Sony, Cochin vs. The DCIT, Cochin

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 69

…made. In our opinion, as held by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanasundaram (supra), the burden of proof in this kind of transaction was that of the Revenue. The same view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (131 ITR 597). The question in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes & Others (2003) 262 ITR 354, wherein the High Court held that when a document shows fixed price, there will be a presumption that, that is correct price agreed upon by the parties. It is not necessary that t…

Cummins India Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 309/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…r form No.3CL, even if sent through CBDT, it has to go back to the prescribed authority. 37. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoinder referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) pointed out that marginal notes of section cannot be read to understand the intent of section. He further referred to old form placed at page 21 of Paper Book and the new form which is placed at page 22 of Paper Book and pointed out that differences between the two and stressed that the requirement to go into the expenditure incurred by the…

Harry Inder Dhaul, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3499/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Harry Inder Dhaul Addl. Cit Range-12(2) 22, Rakhi Mahal, D.V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Road, Road, New Marine Churchgate, Lines Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Abapd1065B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.C. Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. S.C. Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR
Section 143(3)Section 52(2)(vii)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Harry Inder Dhaul Addl. CIT Range-12(2) 22, Rakhi Mahal, D.V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Road, Road, New Marine Churchgate, Lines Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. ABAPD1065B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. S.C. Tiwari, AR Revenue by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR Date of Hearing : 13/02/2018 Date of pronouncement : 09/05/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12.…

Arjun Malhotra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA/405/2005HC Delhi20 Apr 2018

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(1)Section 48Section 54F

…ration. Shares of NIIT were quoted in the stock exchange and therefore the market rate on 5th May, 1998 should be adopted to work out the sale consideration. Decision in the case of K.P. Verghese versus Income Tax Officer, Ernakullum and Another, [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) was distinguished on the ground that ratio expounded related to transaction between strangers and when genuineness of the transaction was not doubted, though there was dispute with regard to the sale consideration. In such cases, it was observed, that onus was on the Revenue to prove that the consideration received was over and above t…

Arjun Malhotra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA/406/2005HC Delhi20 Apr 2018

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(1)Section 48Section 54F

…ration. Shares of NIIT were quoted in the stock exchange and therefore the market rate on 5th May, 1998 should be adopted to work out the sale consideration. Decision in the case of K.P. Verghese versus Income Tax Officer, Ernakullum and Another, [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) was distinguished on the ground that ratio expounded related to transaction between strangers and when genuineness of the transaction was not doubted, though there was dispute with regard to the sale consideration. In such cases, it was observed, that onus was on the Revenue to prove that the consideration received was over and above t…

M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.PAN/GIR No. : AAACG 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkat…

M/S. Cliff Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.PAN/GIR No. : AAACG 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkat…

M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.PAN/GIR No. : AAACG 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkat…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Maruti Securities Limited, Secundrabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1651/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P.Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

…administration of the provisions of section 12(1B) and the court did not look upon this circular as being in conflict with section 12(1B). A similar view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes circulars has been taken in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597, by a Bench of two judges consisting of P.N. Bhagwati and E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ. The Bench has held that circulars of the Central Board of Direct Taxes are legally binding on the Revenue and this binding character attaches to the circulars even if they be found not in accordance with the correct interpretation of the section and they depart or d…

ITO 9(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Anchor Residency P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4407/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…levied only on such income that is actually received. No tax on hypothetical income which, according to the Department, the assessee should have or would have received. 1. CIT v/s. A. Raman & Co. - [(1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC)] 2. K. P. Verghese v/s. ITO - [(1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC)] 3. India Finance & Construction Co. Ltd. v/s. B. N. Panda - [(1993) 200 ITR 710 (Bom)] [In the context of addition of notional interest income] 4. Smt. Geeta Devi v/s. ITO - [(2000) 68 TTJ (Jodh) 729] It is well settled law that tax can be levied only on real income and not on any hypothetical or notional income. Even if an assessee who cou…

Electrocast Sales India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxi, Kolkata

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

ITA 2145/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2145/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Electrocast Sales India Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-Xxi, Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 5671 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 72ASection 79

…ncrease the consideration of assessee and hence the share sale consideration at Rs 2 per share disclosed by the assessee should be accepted by the revenue. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Varghese reported in 131 ITR 597 (SC) in this regard. In response to this, the ld DR vehemently relied on the orders of the lower authorities. We find that it is not in dispute that the 100797 shares of GK Sons Pvt Ltd were held by the assessee for a period of more than 12 months from the date of its purchase. The purchase consideration thereon is not disputed by the revenue. We…

Madhu Sarda, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the

ITA 7410/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhin The Matter Of Mrs. Madhu Sarda , 38,Vikas Center, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400054 Pan: Aajps 5135R Appellant/ Assessee Versus Income Tax Officer, -19(4) Mumbai Respondent/ Revenue

For Respondent: Sh. V. Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…tion that the transaction was in the nature of colourable device. In 3 Madhu Sarda support of his submission his submissions the reliance is made on the following case law ; (i) CIT Vs George Henderson & Co Ltd 66 ITR 622 (SC ) (ii) K.P. Verghese versus ITO 131 ITR 597(SC) (iii) Union of India versus Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706(SC) (iv) CIT vs Morarjee Textile Ltd ITXA 778/2014 dt. 24.01.2017(Bombay) (v) Morarjee Textile Ltd vs. ACIT, ITA 1979/M/09 dated 10.05.2013 (vi) CIT vs. Hede Consultancy Co. Pvt. Limited, 231 Taxman 421(Bombay) (vii) CIT vs. Shriram Investments [2017] 77 taxmann.com 113(Madras) (vii…

ACIT Cir 28(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Sai Shirdi Constructions, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5135/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 145Section 69C

…of amenities to be provided by the assessee and these amenities will not be provided in the flats sold on shell basis. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [131 ITR 597] and submitted that the burden lies on the Revenue to show that there is understatement of consideration. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case the Revenue has not discharged its burden by proving that there is understatement of consideration by bringing in cogent materials and the comparable instances or the statements fro…

Jet Chemicals P.Ltd, Kalyan vs. Ast CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

ITA 3707/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3707/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Suman Kumar
Section 143(1)

…spicion has made additions whereas the law of land is that suspicion cannot take place of evidence. In this respect, we placed reliance in the case DCIT Vrs. Rajeev G. Kalathil, (Mum Trib.) (ITA No. 6727/Mum/12 dated 20.08.14 and K.P. Varghese Vrs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 579 (SC). Apart from above, we have further noticed that the AO had relied on third party information without affording the assessee to cross examination. Reliance is placed on Kishan Chand Chella Ram Vrs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) and the observation of third party cannot be the basis of addition. In this respect, we placed reliance in the case of…