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

Red Chillies Entertaiment 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 6655/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5227/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: :Shri L.P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Sharma, Advocate &
Section 115Section 115W

…ction, commissioning and installation of infrastructure telecommunication projects also. The Board’s circulars are also binding on the Revenue authorities as held by the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT, 237 ITR 889 (SC) and K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, 131 ITR 597. Questions Nos. 80 & 106 of the above circular help the assessee for computing FBT at lower rate of 5% instead of 20% on conveyance, travel and tour. In view of the finding of the ld. CIT(A) as 7 ITA No.5227/Del./2010 narrated above & circulars as noted above, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue…

Pushpa Goel, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 7108/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar
Section 48Section 54

…he shares have been transferred by the respective assessees, with any other consideration? The ld. AR before us, in this regard, relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., 87 ITR 407 (SC) and K.P. Varghese, 131 ITR 597 (SC). We have gone through the decisions as relied by the ld. AR. We noted that the sale consideration u/s 48 of the Act can only be the sale consideration which has been received by the assessee. The ld. DR even though relied on the order of the authorities below, but could not place before us or bring to our knowledge any evidence which may pro…

Prerak K. Goel, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 7107/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar
Section 48Section 54

…he shares have been transferred by the respective assessees, with any other consideration? The ld. AR before us, in this regard, relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., 87 ITR 407 (SC) and K.P. Varghese, 131 ITR 597 (SC). We have gone through the decisions as relied by the ld. AR. We noted that the sale consideration u/s 48 of the Act can only be the sale consideration which has been received by the assessee. The ld. DR even though relied on the order of the authorities below, but could not place before us or bring to our knowledge any evidence which may pro…

Prayas K. Goel, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 7106/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar
Section 48Section 54

…he shares have been transferred by the respective assessees, with any other consideration? The ld. AR before us, in this regard, relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., 87 ITR 407 (SC) and K.P. Varghese, 131 ITR 597 (SC). We have gone through the decisions as relied by the ld. AR. We noted that the sale consideration u/s 48 of the Act can only be the sale consideration which has been received by the assessee. The ld. DR even though relied on the order of the authorities below, but could not place before us or bring to our knowledge any evidence which may pro…

Kamlesh Goel (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 10, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 1863/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar
Section 48Section 54

…he shares have been transferred by the respective assessees, with any other consideration? The ld. AR before us, in this regard, relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., 87 ITR 407 (SC) and K.P. Varghese, 131 ITR 597 (SC). We have gone through the decisions as relied by the ld. AR. We noted that the sale consideration u/s 48 of the Act can only be the sale consideration which has been received by the assessee. The ld. DR even though relied on the order of the authorities below, but could not place before us or bring to our knowledge any evidence which may pro…

JCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. System Controls & Transformers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5335/DEL/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2017AY 1994-95

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Anadi N. Mishrasystem Controls & Transformers Pvt. Jcit, Ltd., Range-2, Cgo-2, Vs. Ghaziabad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Adv & A.S. Jindal
Section 145(2)Section 234BSection 40A(3)

…by failing to conduct itself in a disciplined and responsible manner. For taking this view, we take guidance from well known rule of interpretation called 'Mischief Rule' which has been approved in many judicial decisions including in K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO, 131 ITR 597 (SC). When 'Mischief Rule' is applied, that view is preferred which suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy. We also take guidance from rule of purposive interpretation ( under which, when two views are possible, that view is preferred which furthers the purpose with which a provision is enacted ) approved in many judicial decisions, in…

Alpex Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3319/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negialpex Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan:Aaacn 7738H ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6, Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak D. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…asset being land or buildings or both, which is not the case herein. The aforesaid proposition does not require any further elaboration and in-fact the same is fully supported by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO, 131 ITR 597 (SC), CIT v. George Henderson and Co. 9 Ltd., , 66 ITR 622,(SC) and CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., 87 ITR 407(SC). Therefore, even if, for the sake of argument, the stand of the PCIT is accepted that the correct value of Preference shares has not been made and the correct value would have been higher than the stated sale consideration, even…

Renowned Engineers Private Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1267/CHNY/2016[20101-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1267/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 52Section 55A

…ceived or arising as a result of transfer (of the capital asset). Sec.52, which so deemed in cases beyond a certain threshold different (between the stated consideration and the f.m.v.), was struck down by the Hon'ble Apex court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), and stands since omitted. On the Bench observing some Grounds (viz. Gds. 4, 6) disputing the valuation by the VO, so that the VO shall also have to be heard in the matter, the ld. AR – the assessee’s counsel, Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, would concede that he does not press those grounds, and that the assessee’s case be confined to that as argued…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Indra Gaggar, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 808/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.808, 1295, 1294, 1296 & 809/M/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Dcit Cen Cir 8(1), Smt. Indra Gaggar, R.No.656, 6Th Floor, 41-42, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Gaurav Extension, M.K. Road, Film City Road., बनाम/Vs. बनाम बनाम बनाम Mumbai – 400 020 Gokuldham, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 063 Pan: Afxpg3889B (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) ("&यथ% "&यथ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% "&यथ% "&यथ% Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. Ghosh, D.R. सुनवाई क' तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2016 सुनवाई क' तारीख सुनवाई क' तारीख सुनवाई क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 घोषणा क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Ghosh, D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27Section 31Section 68

…by the A.0 are not applicable to the facts of the case. On the contrary, the decisions cited by the appellant in the following cases are directly relevant and applicable to the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case: (i) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (5C) (ii) CIT vs. Godavari Corporation Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 567 (5C) (iii) CIT vs. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (5C) (iv) CIT V/s Smt.Nandini Nopany (1998) 230 IRE 679 (Cal) 14.2 In view of the decisions cited above, it is established that even if there were some other instances of sale of shares at a higher price that cannot lead…

ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunil Ghanshyamdas Verliani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3813/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Ashwani Taneja, Am Income Tax Officer Shri Sunil Ghanshyamdas 14(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, Earnest Verliani House, Nariman Point, Mumbai- C/O M/S Sunil Enterprise 138, Vs. 400021. Vitthalwadi, Opp. Vithoba Mandir, Mumbai-400002. Pan No.Aabpv3351J .. Appellant Respondent Revenue By .. Shri T.A Khan, Dr .. Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 28-11-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 28-11-2016 O R D E R

Section 142ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 59BSection 69B

…re cannot form basis for addition u/s 69 B of the Act. The burden to prove under statement is on the Revenue and in the absence of any evidence addition cannot be made. This view has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KP Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 579 (SC). Secondly, a new provision as introduced by the finance bill 2013 w. e. f. 01-04-2014 of provisions of Section 56 (2) (vii) (b), wherein immovable property purchased/received for inadequate consideration, which is less than stamp value by 50,000 or more, than the difference between the stamp duty value and inadequate consideration shall be t…

DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai vs. Deven J Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6058/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…by the A.O are not applicable to the facts of the case. On the contrary, the decisions cited by the appellant in the following cases are directly relevant and applicable to the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case: (1) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Godavari Corporation Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 567 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) (iv)CIT V/s Smt.Nandini Nopany (1998) 230 IRE 679 (Cal) 5 14.2 In view of the decisions cited above, it is established that even if there were some other instances of sale of shares at a higher price that cannot lead t…

Aditya Birla Telecom Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax 10(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 341/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar, Sp. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 391Section 394Section 45Section 47

…22 TTJ 300) 26. As per learned AR, capital gains are to be computed having regard to the full value of consideration received / accrued to the assessee i.e., or fair market value of the asset on the date of transfer. Reliance placed on (i) KP Varghese vs ITO (131 ITR 597) (SC) (ii) CIT vs George Henderson & Co., (66 ITR 622) (iii) Gillianders Arbuthnot (SC) (87 ITR 407) (iv) Rupee Finance & Management (P) Ltd., vs ACIT (22 SOT 174) as approved by Bombay HC. 27. Learned AR further contended that deemed consideration is only applicable under section 50C and section 50D which is not the case in the matter. 28. As pe…

July Systems & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly

ITA 1574/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 234BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI S.K.YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (TP) A No.1574 (Bang) 2013 (Assessment year 2005-06) M/s July Systems & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., No.17/9C, 4th Floor, Maruthi Chambers, Rupena Agrahara, Hosur Rod, Bangalore -560 068 Pan No.AABCB6543M Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Bangalore Respondent Assessee by : Shri K.R.Pradeep, CA Revenue by : Shri AR V. Sreenivasan, JCIT Date of hearing : 23-08-2016 Date of pronouncement: : 18-10-2016 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM This is ass…

A.C.I.T. Circle 21(1), Mumbai vs. Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 4571/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…idea behind introduction of security transaction tax is to end the litigation on the issue, whether the profit earned from delivery based sale of shares is capital gains or business profit. 12. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.P. Verghese Vs ITO, 131 ITR 597 (SC) observed as under:- Shri Mohan K.Jain, Mumbai 39 I.T.A.No. 1033 & 748/Mum/2010 A.Y.2006-07 „‟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 legis…

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3543/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…idea behind introduction of security transaction tax is to end the litigation on the issue, whether the profit earned from delivery based sale of shares is capital gains or business profit. 12. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.P. Verghese Vs ITO, 131 ITR 597 (SC) observed as under:- Shri Mohan K.Jain, Mumbai 39 I.T.A.No. 1033 & 748/Mum/2010 A.Y.2006-07 „‟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 legis…

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3542/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…idea behind introduction of security transaction tax is to end the litigation on the issue, whether the profit earned from delivery based sale of shares is capital gains or business profit. 12. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.P. Verghese Vs ITO, 131 ITR 597 (SC) observed as under:- Shri Mohan K.Jain, Mumbai 39 I.T.A.No. 1033 & 748/Mum/2010 A.Y.2006-07 „‟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 legis…

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3541/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…idea behind introduction of security transaction tax is to end the litigation on the issue, whether the profit earned from delivery based sale of shares is capital gains or business profit. 12. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.P. Verghese Vs ITO, 131 ITR 597 (SC) observed as under:- Shri Mohan K.Jain, Mumbai 39 I.T.A.No. 1033 & 748/Mum/2010 A.Y.2006-07 „‟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 legis…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4588/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S K P Sanghvi & Sons, Income Tax -16(3), Matru 1301, Prasad Chambers, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Operahouse,Mumbai-4 Mumbai-400007 Pan:Aaafk8390F .. Appellant Respondent Appellant By .. Sri R P Meena Respondent By .. Sri K Shivram Date Of Hearing .. 29-09-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 29 -09- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)-27/Ac-16(3)/135/13-14 Dated 22.4.2014. Assessment Was Framed By The Acit- Circle 16(3), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide His Order Dated 28.3.2013 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

Section 143(3)

…ne to construe the provisions which appear to conflict so that they harmonise. It should not be lightly assumed that Parliament had given with one hand what it took away with the other." 2.4.28 Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13, has further held that the task of interpretation is not a mechanical task and, quoted with approval, Justice Hand's observation that "it is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary but to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish, whos…

Taurian Iron & Steel Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5920/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri K.B.DesaiFor Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…(xiv). CIT Vs. Precision Steel and Engg. Works (179 ITR 283)(P&H). (xv). East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. C.R Shekhar Reddy & Anr. (230 ITR 622)(Kar) (xvi). UCO Bank Ltd. VS. CIT (237 ITR 889)(SC). (xvii).Anjuman M.I1 Ghaswala (252 ITR 1)(SC) (xviii). K.P Varghese (131 ITR 597)(SC) (xix). Dhiren Chemicals (254 ITR 554) (xx). Navnitlal C. Jhaveri (56 ITR 198 at 203)(SC) (xxi). Ellerman Lines Ltd. Vs. CIT (82 ITR 913, at 920-21)(SC) , and thus submitted that as the A.O had erred in not following the CBDT Circular No. 5 (supra), therefore his action may be vacated. 8. The Ld. A.R further referring to another CBDT Circular…