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 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 153A Section 132 Section 292C Section 69 Section 153C Section 115BBE Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 5(8)section 52 closely held company accumulated profits dumb documents section 132(4a)section 131(1a)section 260 section 69b section 292c section 292b section 292

Judgments citing K.P. Varghese v. ITO

Ramita Mahendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4535/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Purushotam Kumar

Section 54

…idence within the meaning of Section 54 of the IT Act, 1961. Till such time, he had only the right to purchase house property, he added. He relied on the following decisions:-  (1) CWT v. K.B. Pradhan [1981] 130 ITR 393 (Ori.) (2) K.P, Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) (3) CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum [1988] 173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 31 (AP) (4) Purushottam Govind Bhat v. First ITO [1985] 13 ITD 939 (Bom.) (5) Damodar Raheja v. Eighth ITO [1984] 10 ITD 75 (Mad.). And finally Tribunal decided the issue that in case the assessee is allowed possession of the property, only from that date the ownership is to be cons…

ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Saturn Advisory Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

Section 143(1)

…stated. There is no evidence, direct or inferential, in these cases that the full consideration had not been stated in the document. Capital gains tax was not, therefore, taxable on the present case.—K.P. Vargese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) : TC22R.105 followed; Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 311 (Mad) : TC22R.151 affirmed on different grounds.” 2.8. Likewise, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Navi Gera (2010) 328 ITR 516 (Del.) held as under:- “The present appeal has been filed under s. 260A of IT Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the ord…

Sonia Goel vs. I.T.O, Ward 21(1), New Delhi

In the resultant proceedings, the reopening of the assessment

ITA/703/2017HC Delhi28 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 55Section 55A

…rt but only that there could be no re-opening of the assessment. No objection was raised about the Assessee not having received a notice from the DVO in the valuation proceedings. It was urged, on the strength of the decision in K.P. Verghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) and other decisions, was that an addition could not be made only on the basis of the valuation report. 8. The above objections were negatived by the AO and a re-assessment order came to be passed on 10th March, 2014 making an addition of Rs.48,21,216/-. After the CIT (A) confirmed the above addition by dismissing the Assessee’s appea…

Sonia Goel vs. I.T.O, Ward 21(1), New Delhi

In the resultant proceedings, the reopening of the assessment

ITA - 703 / 2017HC Delhi28 Aug 2017

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 55Section 55A

Bsi Securities International Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6992/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paresh SapariaFor Respondent: Ms.Pooja Swaroop

Section 50C

….55,86,000/- as computed by the valuation officer in his report, referred above.' Even though the receipt of valuation report is acknowledged, the 'assessee objected to the same relying on the hon'ble apex court decision in the case, of K.P. Vargheese vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 and sought that sale proceeds as declared by assessee be accepted. I have gone through assessee's contention. The decision of the hon'ble apex court decision in the case of K.P. Vargheese us. ITO 131 ITR 597 was with reference to the provisions of s.52(2) which read as below; “52(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if in th…

The ACIT, (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Health Care Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 611/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.P. Tolani & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.611/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri R.I. Patel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Jigar M.Patel, AR

Section 115WSection 271Section 271(1)(d)

…the Hon'ble Finance Minister may not be a decisive test, so however, it is indeed a relevant and contemporaneous exposition of the legislative intent and can be relied upon, as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P, Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 131. Considered in that light too, we find that the interpretation sought to be made out by the Revenue with regard to the meaning of the expression 'fringe benefits' for the purpose of section 115WB(2) of the Act is quite misplaced. Considering the aforesaid, we therefore do not subscribe to the interpretation sought-to be placed by the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh.Smt. Deepti Talla, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1563/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 148

…Ltd, [2012] 25 taxmann.com 210 (Delhi). (v). CIT vs Gulshan Kumar [2002] 257 ITR 703 (Delhi). (vi). CIT v. P .V. Kalyanasundaram [2007] 294 ITR 49 (SC). (vii). Subhash Chand Chopra v. Asst. CIT [2005] 92 TTJ (Delhi) 1087). (viii). K.P Varghese. v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC). 7. On the strength of above decisions, the ld. CIT(A) further observed as under : “Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the Assessing Officer has erred in referring the matter to the DVO and consequently the DVO's report on the value of investment in the property cannot replace the actual purchase value shown ITA No. 1563/Del./2014 1…

Lalita Anup Anand, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7415/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2012-13 Smt. Lalita Anup Anand, Income Tax Officer 337, Ashish Indl. Estate, Ward-21(2)(2), बनाम/ Gokhale Road, Room No.111, 1St Floor, Vs. Dadar (West), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400028 Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aadpa1527B (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ए, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessment Year-2012-13 Smt. Lalita Anup Anand, Income Tax Officer 337, Ashish Indl. Estate, Ward-21(2)(2), बनाम/ Gokhale Road, Room No.111, 1st Floor, Vs. Dadar (West), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400028 Mumbai-400012 PAN No.AADPA1527B (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Ashwani Kumar Shri Rajesh Kr. Yadav-DR राज"व क" ओर…

Neelkamal Realtors and Erectors India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2589/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Neelkamal Realtors & Dcit -5(1), Erectors India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Floor, 265-E, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan: Aabcn9254D (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit -5(1), M/S Neelkamal Realtors & Aayakar Bhavan, Erectors India Pvt. Ltd., Ground Mumbai-400020 Vs. Floor, 265-E, Bellasis Road, Mimbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan: Aabcn9254D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…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. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the context of section 52, in K.P. Verghese VS ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) , has held that :`Subs. (2) of s. 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 is declared or disclosed by him and the burden of proving such an understatement or concealment is on the Revenue. Sub-s. (…

Ge Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 563/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)(ITAT)-1

Section 144CSection 92C

…substituting and prescribing a new method. 27. The onus is on the department to establish there is any tax avoidance and it is essential that incontrovertible evidences are in the possession of the AO before a reference is made as held by the Supreme Court in 131 ITR 597 and further has erred in not relying on the circular. 28. The Learned AO/TPO/DRP have failed to identify comparables in terms of Rule 10B(3). 29. The Learned AO/TPO/DRP failed to make the necessary adjustments as is required in terms of Rule 10B(2). 30. The AO/TPO/DRP erred in not granting the variances deduction of 5% envisaged in the Act and Ci…

ACIT, Circle-10(2), Kolkat, Kolkata vs. M/S. Stewart & Mackertich Wealth Management Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the assessee`s ground No

ITA 1858/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhary, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 73

…i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.1984 from when the section was brought on the statute. 6.4.6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs J.H.Gotla reported in (1985) 156 ITR 323 (SC) at page 339 and 340 had observed as under:- “In the case of K P Varghese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 , this court emphasized that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible, that absurdity and mischief may be avoided. Where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly unjust result which could never have been intended by the legislature, the court might modify the Management Ltd...AY. 2011-12 langu…

Stewart and Mackertich Wealth Management Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Circle-10, Kolkata

In the result, the assessee`s ground No

ITA 1820/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhary, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 73

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dabur India Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 3492/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR

Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92BSection 92C

…rrived at by the valuer was almost sacrosanct and could not have been substituted with any other amount for computing the capital gains. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT v Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co (1973) 87 ITR 407 (SC) " KP Verghese 131 ITR 597 (SC) " CIT v Shivakami Co Ltd 159 ITR 71 (SC) " CIT v George Henderson and Co Ltd 66 ITR 622 (SC) " ITO v Balaji Textile Mills Pvt Ltd - ITA No 3197/Mum 2010 ITA Nos. 3257 & 3492/Del/2013 109 Dabur India Ltd. 54. It was further submitted that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings provided working of share valuation wherein c…

M/S Dabur India Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 3257/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR

Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92BSection 92C

ITO, WD-41(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Delta Construction, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1424/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 1424/Kol/2014 Assessment Year – 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-41(2), Kolkata M/S. Delta Construction -Vs- 5D, Gopal Bose Lane Kolkata-700050 [Pan: Aaefd7122L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50C

…value of the property which were sold by the assessee as stock in trade. In response to this the Ld. AR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and also argued that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597(SC), wherein it was held that the onus is on the Revenue to prove that assessee had indeed received extra consideration over and above what is stated in the registered sale deed. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Revenue had not brought any material on record to prove the same. Hence, it should only be 5 I.T.A. No. 1424/Kol/2014 Assessment Yea…

Sanjay Kumar Poddar, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 15(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee, in part

ITA 3150/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3150/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Jain & Associates, Circle 15(1),Matru Mandir, Vs. 12 Engineer Building, 265, Princess Mumbai-400 006. Street, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan:Aabpp 2018 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3961/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Vs. Jain & Associates, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400 006. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri A.K. Nayak- Dr Assessee By: Shri S.L. Jain

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Nayak- DR

Section 10Section 111ASection 143Section 2Section 254(1)

…are to be treated as trading assets. In view of these facts, profit arose on shares in respect of delivery based transaction are liable to be taxed as capital gain and not as business income. 10. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.P. Verghese vs TO, 131 ITR 597 (SC) observed as under:- ‘’The task of interpretation of a statutory enactment is not mechanical task. It is more than a mere reading of mathematical formulae because few word possesses the precision of mathematical symbols. It is an attempt to discover the intent of the legislature from the language used by it and it must always be remembered th…

M/S. Aztecsoft (Now Merged With Mindtree Ltd), Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1434/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Chytanya K. K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Preethi Garg, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 144CSection 92C

…ubstituting and prescribing a new method. 13. The onus is on the department to establish there is any tax avoidance and it is essential that incontrovertible evidences are in the possession of the AO before a reference is made as held by the Supreme Court in 131 ITR 597 and further has erred in not relying on the circular. 14. The Transfer Pricing Officer / Assessing Officer erred in ignoring the fact that the amount incurred towards marketing expenditure is in the nature of administrative help and the profit margin paid was very much reasonable having regard to the commercial activity and the law on the subjec…

M/S.Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Medical Mission Hospital, Cochin vs. The Dy DIT (Exemption), Cochin

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

ITA 127/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Vs The Dy Director Of Income Tax Medical Mission Hospital (Exemption) Kolencherry 682 311 Kochi ( Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(7)Section 47A(7)

…s. 11 is in consonance with the legislative intent as disclosed by the Finance Minister who spoke in Parliament while this provision was under consideration. 11 It is now settled that the speech of the mover of the Bill is relevant. In Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), P. N. Bhagwati J., held (at p. 608): " Now, it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the mover of the Bill explaining the reason…

Red Chillies Entertainment P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (TDS) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in terms of our directions contained in the orders passed in the aforesaid appeals

ITA 93/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 192Section 194Section 194JSection 201

…the Income-tax Act, that will govern the taxation of income." The circulars of the CBDT are binding upon the Department. Reliance placed upon CIT v. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. [228 ITR 463 (SC), 20 ITA 6655-6657/Mum/2014 ITA 92 & 93/Mum/23015 K.P. Varghese v. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) and UOl v. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC). Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Siemens 4. Aktiongesellschaft [20091 310 ITR 320 (Born) held that where the provisions of the DTAA are more beneficial than provisions of the Act, the provisions of the DTAA would prevail. For Article 12 of Singapore - India DTAA to appl…

Red Chillies Entertainment P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (TDS) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in terms of our directions contained in the orders passed in the aforesaid appeals

ITA 92/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 192Section 194Section 194JSection 201