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.

How many judgments cite K.P. Varghese v. ITO?

989 judgments on BharatTax cite K.P. Varghese v. ITO (131 ITR 597), spanning 2000 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does K.P. Varghese v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 292C, Section 69, Section 153C.

K.P. Varghese v. ITO (131 ITR 597)

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Netscout Systems Software India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1212/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.1212/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year: 2005-06) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(2), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Netscout Systems Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As ‘Network General Software India Pvt. Ltd.) ‘Embassy Icon’, Ground Floor, No.3, Infantry Road, Bengaluru-1. … Respondent Pan:Aaics 0944 E & Cross Objn.No.30/Bang/2012 (In It(Tp)A No.1212/Bang/2011) (Assessment Year: 2005-06) (By The Assessee) Revenue By : Smt. Padma Meenakshi, Jcit(Dr) Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1212/Bang/2011 (Assessment year: 2005-06) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 12(2), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Netscout Systems Software India Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as ‘Network General Software India Pvt. Ltd.) ‘Embassy Icon’, Ground Floor, No.3, Infantry Road, Bengaluru-1. … Respondent PAN:AAICS 0944 E AND Cross Objn.No.30/Bang/2012 (In IT(TP)A No.1212/Bang/2011) (Assessment year: 2005-06) (By the assessee) Revenue by : Smt. Padma Meenakshi…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Saroj Sales Organisation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6864/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-25(2), M/S. Saroj Sales Room No.108, 1St Floor, Organization, Bldg. No.C-11, B-202, The Breezy Corner, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. 90Ft. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mahavir Nagar, Bandra (East) Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 067 Pan: Aamfs5193A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 143(3)

…le Mumbai ITAT in the case of Neel Kamal Realtors and Erectors (referred supra) squarely covers the case of the appellant. The Honble Tribunal in the said decision have made reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case-of K.P.Verghese vs. ITO (198) 131 ITR 597 (SC) wherein it was held that subsection 2 of 52 can be invoked only where the consideration for the transfer has been understated by the assessee and the burden of proving such understatement is on the revenue. An identical view was reiterated in the case of CIT vs. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1986 159 ITR 71(SC) and again reiterated in the decision…

M/S Rajasthan Fort & Palace Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the asessee are allowed

ITA 597/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…(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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Futura Bioplants Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 1271/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 1271/Pun/2015 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Vora & Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 10(1)Section 2

…the CIT(A) while giving relief to the assessee has relied on following decisions mentioned at Para No.4.3.5 of his order : 1. R & B Falcon (A) Pty. Ltd. Vs. CIT 301 ITR 309 (SC) 2. ACIT Vs. Rogini Garments 294 ITR 15 (AT (Chn) (SB) 3. K.P. Verghese Vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) 4. Cocoa Cola India Inc. Vs. ACIT 309 ITR 194 (P&H HC) 5. CIT Vs. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. 261 ITR 721 (Ker. HC) 6. Eventually, the CIT(A) held that the income earned by the assessee on sale of saplings constitute deemed agricultural income of the assessee vide Explanation 3 to section 2(1A) of the Act. 7. Aggrieved with the above d…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. The Nawanshahr Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Nawanshahr

ITA 61/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 61/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Aaaat4125G The Dy. C. I. T. Vs. The Nawanshahr Central Co-Op. Circle-Ii, Jalandhar. Bank Ltd. Nawanshahr, Distt. Doaba. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Kanwal (D. R.)For Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Joshi (Adv.)

Section 36

…case of State Bank of Travancore (supra), the circular dated 9.10.1984 had not been brought to the notice of the Court, nor the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the 10 ITA No. 61(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 case of K.P.Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC). The relevant extracts of the decision in UCO Bank Limited are reproduced hereunder: "There are, however, two decisions of this Court which have been strongly relied upon by the respondents in the present case. The first decision is the majority judgment in The State Bank of Travancore v. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Kerala (1986 (158) ITR…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &

Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…enders the statements of no evidentiary value. 5. Before the ld. CIT(A), following cases relied upon by the ld. AO were adequately distinguished: Gist at PB S. No. Case law Page 1 Smt. Amar Kumari Surana V/s CIT 226 ITR 334 40 2 K.P. Varghese V/s ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) 40-42 3 Raza Sugar Company Ltd. V/s CIT 130 ITR (Del.) 42 4 C.B. Gautam V/s Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC) 42-43 5 M/S Hamamp Properties Pvt. Ltd. V/S ACIT. ITAT Delhi 43-44 6. Positive material needed to prove higher consideration: In the following judicial pronouncements, it is held that unless there is a positive material to show…

ITO, WD-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Arcuttipore Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1190/KOL/2015[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2003-2004

For Appellant: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jalan, ld. AR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 43B

…t. In view of above, he also added the sum of Rs.9,16,568/- to the total income of the assessee. 6. Before the CIT-A the assessee in support of its contention relied on various following case laws:- • CIT Vs. J.H Gotla 156 ITR 323 (SC) • K.P Verghese Vs.ITO 131 ITR 597(SC) • CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd 319 ITR 306(SC) • CIT Vs. Vijyashree Ltd ITAT No. 245 of 2011 • GA No. 2607 of 2011(Cal. H.C) • Assessee’s own case ITAT Kolkata ‘A ‘Bench order for the A.Y 1998-99 7. The CIT-A after considering the submissions and case laws mentioned hereinabove restricted the addition to Rs.74,430/- by stating as under:- Deci…

Analjit Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), Delhi

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

ITA 4737/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50D

…e following judgments, compilation of which has been filed separately before us:- • CIT V. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. 66 ITR 622 (SC) (heavy reliance was placed on this decision) • CIT V. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.: 87 ITR 407 (SC) • K. P. Varghese v. ITO: 131 ITR 597 (SC) • CIT v. Shivakami Co. P. Ltd. 159 ITR 71 (SC) • CIT v. NandiniNopany: 230 ITR 679 (Cal.) • CIT v. Ms. Sushila Mittal & Others: 250 ITR 531 (Del.) • CIT V. Kami Singh 256 ITR 165 (Del) • CIT V. Smt. Sushila Devi 256 ITR 179 (Del.) • CIT v. Nilofer I. Singh: 309 ITR 233 (Delhi) • CIT v. Nilofer I Singh :309 ITR 233 (Del.) • Dev Kumar Jain v.…