K.P. Varghese v. ITO

131 ITR 597Supreme Court of India1981#44 most cited

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

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

989

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

Also referred to as

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

Also reported as

7 Taxmann 13

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing K.P. Varghese v. ITO

Homelife Buildcon Private Limited, Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Smt. Samandeep Kaur DCIT-Central Circle-1, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 880/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 बनाम Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 153D

…and such noting was related to his own brokerage business. Even, Sh. Manu Gupta denied such signatures. It was further argued by the Ld. Counsel that the registration had been made at circle rates and relied upon on the judgment of K.P, Varghese, reported in 131 ITR 597 that consideration has to be considered as per registered document without there being any corroborated evidence found of any on money, no adverse view could be drawn. 39. Further, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel regarding one unsigned agreement found from the premises of Sh. Ajay Prabhakar, between Smt. Asha Garg and Sh. Minni Jain, in respect…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Lu

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 153D

…and such noting was related to his own brokerage business. Even, Sh. Manu Gupta denied such signatures. It was further argued by the Ld. Counsel that the registration had been made at circle rates and relied upon on the judgment of K.P, Varghese, reported in 131 ITR 597 that consideration has to be considered as per registered document without there being any corroborated evidence found of any on money, no adverse view could be drawn. 39. Further, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel regarding one unsigned agreement found from the premises of Sh. Ajay Prabhakar, between Smt. Asha Garg and Sh. Minni Jain, in respect…

Srimanthi Kanthimathi Kumaraswami Mudaliar Kalyanamandapam Trust, Chittoor vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

ITA 690/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

Section 12A

…TR 67 (Mad) Emperor v. Ganpat Laxman Kalgutkar, AIR 1938 Bom 427 4. The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the literal interpretation of clause (iii) leads to absurd results and therefore to be eschewed, as held by the Apex Court in K.P.Varghese vs ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC). K. Rathen 5. The CIT(E) ought to have accepted that the application in 10AB as per the `DOCTRINE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND `INTENDED USE', as held in: Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors - 11 SCC 447 (SC)-19. 3. 07 Thermax Private Ltd. v. CC (Bombay) New Custom House (1992) 4 SCC 440 & Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v…

Opengrad Edu Foundation, Kozhikode vs. CIT(Exemption), Kochi

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed

ITA 165/COCH/2025[Na]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2024-25 Opengrad Edu Foundation .......... Appellant 2/400/Bm, Firdouse House, Kozhikode, Near East Block Of Nit, Chathamangalam, Kozhikode-673601. Pan: Aaeco1702C Vs. Cit (Exemptions) .......... Respondent Kochi.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

…of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is later, 9. We are also fortified in adopting the above construction by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [198117 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 (SC). 10. Adverting to the facts of the present case, undisputedly, the appellant trust commenced its actual activities on 16.03.2011 and in view of the above construction of clause (iii) of proviso to section 80G(5) the appellant trust is entitled to file the application for regular approval prior to six months of expiry of the provisional appro…

Income Tax Officer- 28 3 1 Mumbai, Vashi vs. Triveni and C J Group, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is accordingly dismissed in the above terms

ITA 4032/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito 28(3)(1) Vs. Triveni & C. J. R. No. 316, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Group, Railway Station, Vashi Shop No. 1, Bhoomi Navi Mumbai-400 703 Tower, Sector-4, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-400 709 Pan/Gir No. Aafft1041B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ritika Agarwal, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…by the AO was subjective in nature which has been rightly set aside by the Ld. CIT(A). In support of his arguments, Ld. AR relied on various case laws which are extracted as under:- Sr. Citation Held No. 1 K.P. Varghese v. ITO The burden of proving an (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue. It cannot be done on presumption 2 CIT v. Shivakami Co.(P) The burden is on the revenue to Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 prove the understatement of the (SC) and CIT v. Godavari consideration Corporation Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 567 (SC) 3 CIT V. M/s. Metro In the Absence of any evidence, Constr…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chinnarasu Veeramani, Jolarpet

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3319/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3318/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3319/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Chinnarasu Veeramani बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 43A, Gandhi Road, Edayampatti Chennai. Chonnaakodiyur Village, Vs. Jolarpet-638 851 (Tn) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adkpv-3559-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas (Cit) – Ld. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishna (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 [Cit(A)] On 17-10-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishna (FCA) &
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 69

…said reason. Considering these observations, it was to be held that the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu could not be used against the assessee unless some other evidence to corroborate the same was made available on record. 4.9 In the case of K.P Varghese (131 ITR 597), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability were fulfilled would always be on the revenue and that throwing the burden of showing that there is no under-statement of consideration on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chinnarasu Veeramani, Jolarpet

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3318/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3318/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3319/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Chinnarasu Veeramani बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 43A, Gandhi Road, Edayampatti Chennai. Chonnaakodiyur Village, Vs. Jolarpet-638 851 (Tn) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adkpv-3559-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas (Cit) – Ld. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishna (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 [Cit(A)] On 17-10-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishna (FCA) &
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 69

…said reason. Considering these observations, it was to be held that the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu could not be used against the assessee unless some other evidence to corroborate the same was made available on record. 4.9 In the case of K.P Varghese (131 ITR 597), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability were fulfilled would always be on the revenue and that throwing the burden of showing that there is no under-statement of consideration on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chinnarasu Veeramani, Jolarpet

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3317/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3318/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3319/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Chinnarasu Veeramani बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 43A, Gandhi Road, Edayampatti Chennai. Chonnaakodiyur Village, Vs. Jolarpet-638 851 (Tn) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adkpv-3559-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas (Cit) – Ld. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishna (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 [Cit(A)] On 17-10-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishna (FCA) &
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 69

…said reason. Considering these observations, it was to be held that the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu could not be used against the assessee unless some other evidence to corroborate the same was made available on record. 4.9 In the case of K.P Varghese (131 ITR 597), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability were fulfilled would always be on the revenue and that throwing the burden of showing that there is no under-statement of consideration on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross-Objections

ITA 3192/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3188 To 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 To 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. : : : : Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Actpv 0618 E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, Cit Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate 28.04.2025 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld.Cit(A) `) All Dated 17.10.2024 For The

Section 132Section 153ASection 15ASection 271D

…tions resulting in undisclosed income for the appellant, cannot be relied upon for the purpose of assessments made pursuant to a Search and Seizure action. 6.4.14 It is appropriate to bring on record the observations of Apex court in the case of K.P. Varghese 131 ITR 597 where in it has been held that"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. To throw the burden of showing that there is no understatement of the consideration, on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3190/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…izure action. 6.4.14 It is appropriate to bring on record the observations of Ap It is appropriate to bring on record the observations of Ap It is appropriate to bring on record the observations of Apex court in the case of court in the case of K.P. Varghese 131 ITR 597 where in it has been where in it has been held that"It is a well settled rule of law that the onus of establishing that It is a well settled rule of law that the onus of establishing that 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. To the conditions of ta…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3189/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…izure action. 6.4.14 It is appropriate to bring on record the observations of Ap It is appropriate to bring on record the observations of Ap It is appropriate to bring on record the observations of Apex court in the case of court in the case of K.P. Varghese 131 ITR 597 where in it has been where in it has been held that"It is a well settled rule of law that the onus of establishing that It is a well settled rule of law that the onus of establishing that 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. To the conditions of ta…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3188/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…izure action. 6.4.14 It is appropriate to bring on record the observations of Ap It is appropriate to bring on record the observations of Ap It is appropriate to bring on record the observations of Apex court in the case of court in the case of K.P. Varghese 131 ITR 597 where in it has been where in it has been held that"It is a well settled rule of law that the onus of establishing that It is a well settled rule of law that the onus of establishing that 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. To the conditions of ta…

Vivira Investment and Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4, Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5448/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

…ge price of quoted price on NSE in last 26 weeks which was worked out at Rs.641 by the valuer, therefore, there was no intention to evade any tax. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Varghese vs. ITO reported in (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC). 5.5 The Ld.AR submitted that, business deals are done on the basis of negotiations considering various factors, and that market rate may be one of the factors which may determine the price at which the ultimate deal takes place. He submitted that, some deals may go through in a very short time, whereas others may take place after prolong ne…

Shri Bhanwar Lal, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 417/JODH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…/Jodh/2025 Shri Bhanwar Lal 21 documentary. No papers in fact were found during the course of search and seizure operation to support his conclusion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Vargese v. Income Tax Officer (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) for the proposition that fictional receipt cannot be deemed to be a receipt in the absence of any cogent material to support the factum of actual receipt. 6.4. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. AO made addition merely on assumption, presumption which is not tenable under the law. No investigation or enquiry during the assessment, contrary to th…

Jypore Manufacturing Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 432/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Jypore Manufacturing Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम DCIT, Vs. Central Circle-01, Plot No. 1 and 2 Ratan Shiksha Building, Near Gokhle Park, Janta Colony, Jaipur Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACJ 4640 C अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से /…

Gold Coin Apartments Co Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3185/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vidyadhar KhandekarFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmal
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…Firstly, the marginal note to section 80P which reads "Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies" is important, in that it indicates the general "drift" of the provision. This was so held by this Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 as follows: 12 Assessment Year 2021-2022 "9. This interpretation of sub-section (2) is strongly supported by the marginal note to Section 52 which reads "Consideration for transfer in cases of understatement". It is undoubtedly true that the marginal note to a section cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the section but it can cer…

Arpit Hotel, Patna vs. DCIT Central Circle 3, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/PAT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata)

Section 147Section 148

…e is no evidence with the department that the money so withdrawn was used elsewhere so as to deprive the appellant from depositing the same in its bank accounts. 3.8 Your kind attention is invited to classical observations of Apex court in case of KP Varghese 131 ITR 597 holding that "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, to throw the burden of showing that there is no understatement of the consideration on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely that he d…

Prem Singh Raja, Chamba vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 423/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CA and Shri Lovesh Bansal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 263

…ment of rights and were not received or receivable by the assessee. 3.3 The AR relied on the judgment in Sanjeev Lal v. CIT [(2014) 365 ITR 389 (SC)] to argue that agreement to sell confers enforceable rights. Reliance was also placed on K.P. Varghese v. ITO (131 ITR 597), Paramjit Singh v. ITO (323 ITR 588), and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83) to contend that no real income accrued to the assessee and there was no prejudice to the Revenue. 3.4 It was further pointed out that the amounts paid to Hemali Resorts were subjected to tax in their hands and therefore there was no loss to the exchequer. C…

Sh. Prem Singh Raja, Chamba vs. Pr. C.I.T. -1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 359/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CA and Shri Lovesh Bansal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 263

…ment of rights and were not received or receivable by the assessee. 3.3 The AR relied on the judgment in Sanjeev Lal v. CIT [(2014) 365 ITR 389 (SC)] to argue that agreement to sell confers enforceable rights. Reliance was also placed on K.P. Varghese v. ITO (131 ITR 597), Paramjit Singh v. ITO (323 ITR 588), and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83) to contend that no real income accrued to the assessee and there was no prejudice to the Revenue. 3.4 It was further pointed out that the amounts paid to Hemali Resorts were subjected to tax in their hands and therefore there was no loss to the exchequer. C…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Kanva Diagnostic Services Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2233/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri RE Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT and Shri Pranay Nahar
Section 132

…ich cannot be sustained on the elaborate reasoning already given in the earlier paras (7.1 to 7.9) with respect to the AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the AR of the Appellant in the case of K.P. Varghese v ITO [131 ITR 597] also supports the case of the Appellant. Accordingly, it is held . ITA No.2229 to 2233,2182 & CO 1 to 3/Bang/2024 & CO 1 to 3/Bang/2025 that the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 3,19,39,725/- deserves to be deleted. 8.6 Vide ground of appeal no 3 it is stated that the Assessing Officer made an error by adding Rs. 2.28 Crores as inco…