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 367,164 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

D.C.I.T.CC - Xxviii, Kol., Kolkata vs. M/S Binani Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 144/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/ Shri K.V. Beswal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, ld.DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…a High Court in the case of SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 vs Union of India and Others reported in 262 ITR 638 (Cal), wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court after placing reliance on the two apex court decisions in (1988) 170 ITR 137 (SC) and (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) had held that :- If a plain literal interpretation of statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result, which the Legislature could not have intended, the court is supposed to modify the language used by the Legislature, even to do some violence to it so as to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and produce a…

ITO, Ward - 9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tickwell Commercial Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1693/KOL/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Smt. Shreya Agarwal, ACA

…mmercial Pvt.Ltd.. A.Yr.2005-06 the price it actually showed in the original deed of conveyance. The assessee placed reliance on several judicial pronouncements including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Verghese vs ITO and Another 131 ITR 597 (SC). 8. The CIT(A) on a consideration of the aforesaid submission was of the view that the onus was on the AO to prove that the assessee had in fact paid much more than what is recorded in the original deed of conveyance and that the revenue had not brought any such evidence on record. He had also held that in the assessment completed against o…

Uma Dutt Paliwal Prop., Panipat vs. Addl. CIT, Panipat

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4626/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Uma Dutt Paliwal, Vs Addl. Cit, Prop. Paliwal Home Furnishing, Karnal. Panipat. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50C

…2008-09 Earlier there used to be a provision in Section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which enabled the Assessing Officer to refer the property under transfer to the Valuation Officer for determining market value. However, in K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (Supreme Court), it was held that Section 52(2) cannot be applied to genuine transaction unless there are evidences to show that consideration declared in the sale deed is understated. In other words unless the revenue was able to show that something over and above the sale consideration had passed hands between the transferee and the transfer…

ACIT, Hisar vs. M/S. Prakash Industries Ltd., Hisar

In the result the Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 6230/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 1996-97 Acit, Vs Prakash Industries Ltd., Circle Hisar, Delhi Road, Hisar. Hisar. (Pan: Aabcp6765H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv.

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 1996-97 ACIT, vs Prakash Industries Ltd., Circle Hisar, Delhi Road, Hisar. Hisar. (PAN: AABCP6765H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR Respondent by: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM This Department’s appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.9.2013 passed by the ld. CIT (A), Rohtak, deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). 2. Bri…

Bharathi Dev Anandani, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 882/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bharathi Dev Anandani, No.505, Ashok Heights, No.11, 9Th Cross, Srikanteshwaranagar, Bangalore-560096. … Appellant Pan:Aebpb7950B Vs. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 8(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 50C

…e ITAT, Vizag Bench in the case of M/s Lahiri Promoters (supra) and the coordinate bench has extensively dealt with the issue and after considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Varghese Vs Income tax Officer and another (131 ITR 597) and also considering the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K.R. Palani Swamy and others Vs. Union of India (2008-TMI-30601 in Appeal No W.P No 4387 of 2003 vide order dated 5-8-08.) has held that since the process of sale has been initiated from the date of sale agreement, the applicability of the provisions of section 50C sho…

M/S Housing & Urban Devlopment Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3366/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ely withdrawn. The court also observed that the circulars cannot detract from the Act. The decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in Navnit Lal (C.) Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198, or the subsequent decision in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), also do not appear to have been pointed out to the court. Since the later circular of October 9, 1984, was not pointed out to the court, the court naturally proceeded on the assumption that the benefit granted under the earlier circular was no longer available to the assessee and those circulars could not be resorted to for the purpose of o…

M/S Housing & Urban Devlopment Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3365/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ely withdrawn. The court also observed that the circulars cannot detract from the Act. The decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in Navnit Lal (C.) Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198, or the subsequent decision in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), also do not appear to have been pointed out to the court. Since the later circular of October 9, 1984, was not pointed out to the court, the court naturally proceeded on the assumption that the benefit granted under the earlier circular was no longer available to the assessee and those circulars could not be resorted to for the purpose of o…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. (Hudco), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1562/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ely withdrawn. The court also observed that the circulars cannot detract from the Act. The decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in Navnit Lal (C.) Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198, or the subsequent decision in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), also do not appear to have been pointed out to the court. Since the later circular of October 9, 1984, was not pointed out to the court, the court naturally proceeded on the assumption that the benefit granted under the earlier circular was no longer available to the assessee and those circulars could not be resorted to for the purpose of o…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. (Hudco), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1561/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ely withdrawn. The court also observed that the circulars cannot detract from the Act. The decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in Navnit Lal (C.) Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198, or the subsequent decision in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), also do not appear to have been pointed out to the court. Since the later circular of October 9, 1984, was not pointed out to the court, the court naturally proceeded on the assumption that the benefit granted under the earlier circular was no longer available to the assessee and those circulars could not be resorted to for the purpose of o…

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1168/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ely withdrawn. The court also observed that the circulars cannot detract from the Act. The decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in Navnit Lal (C.) Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198, or the subsequent decision in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), also do not appear to have been pointed out to the court. Since the later circular of October 9, 1984, was not pointed out to the court, the court naturally proceeded on the assumption that the benefit granted under the earlier circular was no longer available to the assessee and those circulars could not be resorted to for the purpose of o…

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1167/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ely withdrawn. The court also observed that the circulars cannot detract from the Act. The decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in Navnit Lal (C.) Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198, or the subsequent decision in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), also do not appear to have been pointed out to the court. Since the later circular of October 9, 1984, was not pointed out to the court, the court naturally proceeded on the assumption that the benefit granted under the earlier circular was no longer available to the assessee and those circulars could not be resorted to for the purpose of o…

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1166/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ely withdrawn. The court also observed that the circulars cannot detract from the Act. The decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in Navnit Lal (C.) Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198, or the subsequent decision in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), also do not appear to have been pointed out to the court. Since the later circular of October 9, 1984, was not pointed out to the court, the court naturally proceeded on the assumption that the benefit granted under the earlier circular was no longer available to the assessee and those circulars could not be resorted to for the purpose of o…

M/S. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd (Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4303/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ely withdrawn. The court also observed that the circulars cannot detract from the Act. The decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in Navnit Lal (C.) Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198, or the subsequent decision in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), also do not appear to have been pointed out to the court. Since the later circular of October 9, 1984, was not pointed out to the court, the court naturally proceeded on the assumption that the benefit granted under the earlier circular was no longer available to the assessee and those circulars could not be resorted to for the purpose of o…

Nec Hcl System Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result we confirm the finding the of the CIT (A) regarding deletion of disallowance u/s 40a (i) of The Income tax Act of Rs

ITA 5497/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, CIT (DR)
Section 10ASection 10A(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…2 A.Y. 2008-09 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…

M/S Griham Construction, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 41(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1769/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri Mahadev Ghosh & S.N.Kundu, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Kureel, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50C

…od guide of contemporaneous exposition of the position of the law and this rule is popularly known as " contemporanea expositio" . This rule of interpretation has been given recognition by the hon' ble Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597. In our opinion, there should not be any cloud of doubt that section 50C has application only to the extent of determining the sale consideration for computation of capital gains under Chapter IV-E of the Act and it cannot be applied for determining the income under other heads.” Aggrieved, assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal. 4. We have…

D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata vs. M/S J.M.Textiles (P) Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 757/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 73

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2008-09 DCIT, Circle-6, Room V/s. M/s J.M.Textiles (P) Ltd., No.-6, 6th Floor, C/o J Shaw & Co., Kalyan Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Bhawan, 2, Elgin Road, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 20 Kolkata-700 069 [PAN No.AAACJ 6507C] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Nongrthung Jungio, JCIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri N.D.Shah, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-11-2015 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 13-01-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Prono…

ITO 19(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Girdharilal Asudani (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1428/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm) & Ashwani Taneja (Am) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1428/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax -19(1)(3), Shri Girdharilal Asudani (Huf), बनाम/ Room No.314, 3Rdh Floor, 201, Kirti Kunj Apartment, Vs. 14Th Road, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Lalbaug, Khar (W), Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400052 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 54FSection 68

…that the burden was on the Revenue to prove that the actual consideration was more than the value has paid by the assessee, and in support of this contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Varghese v. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC). 24. We have gone through the submissions made by both the sides, the orders of authorities below and material placed before us. We find that there are no entries in the books of account of assessee with respect of this receipt and therefore, the same could not have been added to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. It is fur…

Rashna Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4815/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4815/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) बिधम/ Mrs.Rashna C Patel, Income Tax Officer, 16(2)2, Block-A, Mayfair Garden, Matru Mandir, Vs. Little Gibbs Road, Tardeo, Malabar Hill, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400006 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Acwpp6393D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J D Mistry प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri Uday B Jakke सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :1.12.2015 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :9.12.2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J D MistryFor Respondent: Shri Uday B Jakke

…out bringing any other material on record chose to substitute the sale value of shares with his own value and accordingly computed the capital gain. The Ld A.R, by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of K.P.Varghese (131 ITR 597), submitted that the assessing officer is not entitled to substitute any value without bringing any material on record. The Ld A.R also placed reliance on various other case laws to support his arguments. 5. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the book value of shares was about Rs.20/- per share and further the assessee has failed to sho…

ACIT, Haridwar vs. M/S. Uttarakhand Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Uttrakhand

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 1521/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 1521/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S Uttrakhand Construction Co. Income Tax, Circle, Haridwar, Pvt. Ltd., 1, Gole Market, D-29 & 30, Industrial Area, Rishikesh, Uttrakhand Haridwar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu7007L Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR
Section 50C

…" M/s Lahiri Promoters Vs ACIT in ITA No. 12/Vizag/2009 order dated 22.06.2010 " ITO Vs M/s Modipon Ltd. in ITA No. 2049/D/2009 order dated 09.01.2015 " Sanjeev Lal Vs CIT 365 ITR 389 (SC) " Sarwan Kumar Vs ITO 150 ITD 289 (Del.-Trib.) " K. P. Varghese Vs ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) ITA Nos. 1521/Del/2012 9 Uttrakhand Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, the assessee executed an agreement to sale with Sh. Pradeep Kumar and agreed to sale a piece of land owned by it for Rs. 51,00,000/-…

Ge Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 328/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P.) A. No.328/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Ge Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Since Merged With Wipro Ge Healthcare Circle 7(1)(2), Bangalore. Pvt. Ltd.) Plot Nos.3, 3A & 4, Kadugodi Indl. Area, Bangalore-560 067 Pan Aaacg 7655G Appellant Respondent. I.T.(T.P.) A. No.224/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.A. Revenue By : Shri G.R. Reddy, Cit-I (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 9.9.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 4.11.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : These Are Cross Appeals By Revenue & The Assessee, Preferred Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dt.30.12.2014 Passed Under Section 143(3) Rws 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') In Pursuance To The Directions Dt.28.11.2014 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I (D.R.)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 92C

…substituting and prescribing a new method. 25. 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. 26. The Learned AO/TPO/DRP have failed to identify comparables in terms of Rule 10B(3). 27. The Learned AO/TPO/DRP failed to make the necessary adjustments as is required in terms of Rule 10B(2). 28. The AO/TPO/DRP erred in not granting the variances deduction of 5% envisaged in the Act and Ci…