K.P. Varghese v. ITO

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Divya Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue Dismissed and Cross

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

…in [2008] 297 ITR 167 (SC) CO No. 355/Del/2011 Hilder vs. Dexter (1902) AC 474 (HL). Head & Co. Ltd. vs. Ropner Holding Ltd. (1951) 2 AIi ER 994 (Ch. D) followed in Shearer (Inspector of Taxes vs. Bercain Ltd. (1980) 3 All ER 295 K.P. Varghese's Case [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) CIT vs. Nilofar I Singh (2009) 309 ITR 0233 dated August 27, 2008 Dev Kumar Jain vs. ITO (2009) 309 ITR 0240 Commissioner of Income George Henderson and Co. Ltd. (1967) 066 ITR 0622 (SC) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gillianders Arbuthnot and Co. GilIanders Arbuthnot and Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 087 ITR 0407 (SC) CIT v…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sirajuddin Qureshi, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…losed sources, for purchase of the above said property, is totally baseless. In our view the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly relied on the following decisions and deleted the addition. i. CIT vs. Ms.Sushila Mittal (2001) 250 ITR 531 (Del) ii. KP Verghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) iii.George Handerson & Co. 66 ITR 622 (SC) iv. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. 87 ITR 407 (SC) v. Raman Bhattathripad 196 ITR 671 (Kerala) vi. CIT vs. Lionel Edwards Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 416 viii. ITAT Ahemdabad in the case of Rakesh Ji Shah vs DCIT 53 TTJ 267 viii. Delhi ITAT in the case of DCIT Central-2 vs. Sh.Vinay Kochhar 2008 TIOL 113 (Del.…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO Assessment year : 2005-06 BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., vs. Assistant CIT, BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AAGCS3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy CIT, vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), BSES Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AAGCS3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment year : 2006-07 BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., vs. Assistant CIT, BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AAGCS3187H) (Appell…

Commissioner of Income Tax-XI vs. Raj Kumar Jain

…and eventually the purchaser agreed to pay a further amount of ₹35 lakhs. The ITAT took note of several decisions, including CIT vs. Naveen Gera 2010 328 ITR 516 (Delhi) and other decisions, including that of K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) of Supreme Court to show that the AO has to base his view with regard to under valuation, upon objective material. 7. In the present case, it is a matter of fact that on 18.09.1989, the statement was recorded by the Court. At the same time, equally the title was not conveyed to the purchaser. The intervening death of the original owne…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nishi Mehra

…edly accepted them. Wealth Tax authorities too had accepted the valuation. In almost identical circumstances, this Court in Navin Gera (supra) recollected the previous rulings - including the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) and held as follows: - “9. We do not find merit in the submission made by Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal that the concealed income was detected during the course of search or any evidence was found which would indicate such concealment. The seized material containing the sale deeds of the properties, which have been relied upon to make refe…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nishi Mehra

…edly accepted them. Wealth Tax authorities too had accepted the valuation. In almost identical circumstances, this Court in Navin Gera (supra) recollected the previous rulings - including the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) and held as follows: - “9. We do not find merit in the submission made by Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal that the concealed income was detected during the course of search or any evidence was found which would indicate such concealment. The seized material containing the sale deeds of the properties, which have been relied upon to make refe…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Associate Techno Plastics P. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed and the question of law is answered in favour of the

…r words, it was not the case of the revenue that the assessee-ATPPL had paid higher sale consideration than one disclosed by them. Reliance was placed by the tribunal on the decision of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese versus Income Tax Officer, (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC). 11. Facts have been discussed in detail in the case of HEICL. We may note the facts as found by the tribunal. U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited (UPLC), a State Government undertaking, was a co-promoter of Hindustan Computers Limited alongwith Mircrocomp Ltd. The principal promoters of Microcomp Limited were S.S. Nadar, Arjun Ma…

CIT vs. Khoobsurat Resorts Pvt Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…nd concealment of income had taken place. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court, in K.R.Palanisamy v. Union of India, [2008] 306 ITR 61 (Mad) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court, in K.P. Varghese v Income-tax Officer [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC). 11. As regards the second question, it was argued by the assesse, that all the necessary documents, such as PAN particulars, ledger extracts, income tax returns, etc, of the individual and his proprietary concern, who paid the cost of the properties, was disclosed. The AO was fully aware of this, despite which, without further invest…

CIT vs. Khoobsurat Resorts Pvt Ltd

…nd concealment of income had taken place. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court, in K.R.Palanisamy v. Union of India, [2008] 306 ITR 61 (Mad) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court, in K.P. Varghese v Income-tax Officer [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC). 11. As regards the second question, it was argued by the assesse, that all the necessary documents, such as PAN particulars, ledger extracts, income tax returns, etc, of the individual and his proprietary concern, who paid the cost of the properties, was disclosed. The AO was fully aware of this, despite which, without further invest…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain HUF

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…uch an inference could be very subjective and could lead to the taxation of notional or fictitious income contrary to the strict provisions of Article 265 of the Constitution of India as held by the Supreme Court in the case of K P Verghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597. 10. Since admittedly the facts in the present case are the same as in the earlier decision of this Court, we see no infirmity in the decision taken by the Tribunal to delete the entire addition made by the assessing officer under Section 69B. As in the earlier decision of this Court, the first two substantial questions of law are answer…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain HUF

…uch an inference could be very subjective and could lead to the taxation of notional or fictitious income contrary to the strict provisions of Article 265 of the Constitution of India as held by the Supreme Court in the case of K P Verghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597. 10. Since admittedly the facts in the present case are the same as in the earlier decision of this Court, we see no infirmity in the decision taken by the Tribunal to delete the entire addition made by the assessing officer under Section 69B. As in the earlier decision of this Court, the first two substantial questions of law are answer…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…evenue before the Tribunal.. The Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 30-g-200g in the assessee's case for sotne earlier years, deleted the entire addition made'under sec.69B, following the judgrnents of the Supreme Couft in K.p. varghese vs ITo (198r) 131 ITR 597 and CIT vs Shivakami company (p) Lrd. (r9BO 159 ITR 71 and the judgrnents of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345l2007, cIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and cIT vs Manoi Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7 . 'We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgrnents cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this c…