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 367,154 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

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA - 1816 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 260ASection 698

…revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 30-9-2009 in the assessee's case for some earlier years, deleted the entire addition rnade under sec.69B, following the judgrnents of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese vs Iro Q981) 131 ITR 597 and cIT vs shivakami Cotnpany (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345l2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7 . We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgments cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this co…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA - 1969 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 13Section 260ASection 69B

…enue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 30-9-2009 in the assessee',S case for some earlier years, deleted the entire addition made under sec.69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 and C!Tvs Shivakami Company (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345/2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7. We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgments cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA - 1803 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 260ASection 698

…revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 30-9-2009 in the assessee's case for some earlier years, deleted the entire addition made under sec.69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in I{.p. Varghese vs ITo (1981) 131 ITR 597 and CIT vs shivakami Company (p) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345l2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj 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 co…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA - 1812 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…d the revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 30-9-2009 in the assessee's case for some earher years, deleted the entire addition made under sec.69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 and CIT vs Shivakami Company (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vj Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345/2007, CITvs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj Vam (2006) 287 ITR285. 7. We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgments cited above, both of the Suprero^e Court and of this court,…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain HUF

ITA - 1667 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 260ASection 698Section 732

…revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 3O-g-2009 in the assessee's case for some earlier years, deleted the entire addition made under sec.69B, following the judgrnents of the Supreme Court in I{.P. Varghese vs ITo (1981) 131 ITR 597 and cIT vs shivakami company (p) Ltd. (r9BO 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345l2007, CIT vs Asholc Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR I43 and, CIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 28s. 7. We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgments cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this cou…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA - 1811 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 132Section 260ASection 698

…revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 30-g-200g in the assessee's case for sorne earlier years, deleted the entire addition made under sec.69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in I{.p. Varghese vs ITo (1981) 131 ITR 597 and cIT vs shivakami Company (p) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345l2007, cIT vs ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and cIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287ITR 285. 7. ' We should have thought ihat the question is concluded by the judgrnents cited above, both of the Supreme Court and.of this co…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA - 1815 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 260ASection 698

…revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 30-9-2009 in the assessee's case for sorne earlier years, deleted the entire addition made under sec.69B, following the judgrnents of the.Supreme Court n I{.p. Varghese vs ITo (r98r) 131 ITR 597 and CITvs shivakami company (p) Ltd. (r9s6) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shalcuntala Devi in ITA No.345/2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj 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 co…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA - 1970 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 260ASection 698

…evenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 30-g-200g in the assessee's case for solne earlier years, deleted the entire addition made under sec.69B, following the judgrnents of the supreme court in I{.p. varghese vs ITo (1981) 131 ITR 597 and cIT vs shivakami company (p) Ltd. (19g6) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345/2007, cIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and cIT vs Manoj 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 cou…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA - 1971 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…venue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 30-9-2009 in the assessee's case for some earlier years, deleted the entire addition made under sec.69B, .following the judgments of the Supreme Court in KP. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 and CITvs Shivakami Company (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in IT A No.345/2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7. We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgments cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA - 1819 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 132Section 260ASection 698

…revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 30-9-2009 in the assessee's case for some earlier years, deleted the entire addition made under sec.69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in I{.p. Varghese vs ITo (1981) 131 ITR 597 and cIT vs shivakami company (p) Ltd (1986) 159 ITR 7i and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345l2007, cIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) z94 rrF. 143 and cIT vs Manoj 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 co…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA - 1813 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 260ASection 69B

…enue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 30-9-2009 in the assessee's case for some earlier years, deleted the entire addition rhade under sec.69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 and CIT vs Shivakami Company (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala De vi in IT A No.345/2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Mana}_ Jain (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7. We should have thought that the question is concluded by tlie judgments ·cited above; both of the Supreme Court and of…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA - 1807 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 132Section 260ASection 698

…e revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 30-9-2009 in the assessee's case for some earlier years, deleted the entire addition made under sec.69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese vs ITo (198L) 131 ITR 597 and cITvs shivakami Company (p) Ltd. (t996) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345/2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal Q007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj 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 cour…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA - 1817 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…e revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 30-9-2009 in the assessee's case for some earlier years, deleted the entire addition made under sec.69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese vs ITo (r98r) 131 ITR 597 and cIT vs shivakami company (P) Ltd. (1996) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court n CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345i2007, CIT vs Asholc Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj Jain (2006) 287 ITR 28s. 7. We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgments cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this cour…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA - 1968 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 260ASection 698

…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…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA - 1805 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, follov^ing its earlier order dated 30-9-2009 in the assessee's case for some earlier years, deleted the entire addition made under sec.69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 and CIT vs Shivakami Company (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345/2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294 ITR 143 and CIT vs Manoj Jfl/n (2006) 287 ITR 285. 7. We should have thought that the question is concluded by the judgments cited above, both of the Supreme Court and of this cour…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA - 1809 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 132Section 260ASection 698

…revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 30-9-2009 in the assessee's case for some earlier years, deleted the entire addition made under sec.69B, following the judgments of the Supreme Couit in I{.P. Varghese vs ITo (1981) 131 ITR 597 and cIT vs shivakami Company (P) Ltd. (1986) 1s9 iTR 71 and the judgments of this court in CIT vs Shakuntala Devi in ITA No.345l2007, CIT vs Ashok Khetrapal (2007) 294ITF* I43 and CIT vs Manoj 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 co…

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range 12

ITA/1280/2007HC Delhi23 Apr 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 263Section 80

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 955/2008 KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. S.Ganesh Sr. Advocate with Ms. Surekha Raman and Mr. Anuj Sarma, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel. + ITA 1280/2007 KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. S.Ganesh Sr. Advocate with Ms. Surekha Raman and Mr. Anuj Sarma, Advocates. versus JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX SPECIAL RANGE 12…

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 955 / 2008HC Delhi23 Apr 2012
Section 263Section 80

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 955/2008 KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. S.Ganesh Sr. Advocate with Ms. Surekha Raman and Mr. Anuj Sarma, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel. + ITA 1280/2007 KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. S.Ganesh Sr. Advocate with Ms. Surekha Raman and Mr. Anuj Sarma, Advocates. versus JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX SPECIAL RANGE 12…

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/955/2008HC Delhi23 Apr 2012
Section 263Section 80

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 955/2008 KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. S.Ganesh Sr. Advocate with Ms. Surekha Raman and Mr. Anuj Sarma, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel. + ITA 1280/2007 KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. S.Ganesh Sr. Advocate with Ms. Surekha Raman and Mr. Anuj Sarma, Advocates. versus JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX SPECIAL RANGE 12…

CIT vs. Arens Developers & Engg

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/145/2012HC Delhi06 Mar 2012

Bench: Us By The Revenue. Ld. Senior Standing Counsel For The Revenue Submits That The Assessing Officer Was Justified In Making Additions On The Ground Of Understatement Of Sale Consideration & Computing The Same By Capitalizing The Annual Rent. He Submits That The Method Adopted By The Assessing Officer Was Justified & In Support Of His Submission Has Relied Upon The Decision Of Madras High Court In Rane (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Cit (2003) 259 Itr 307. 3. The Cit(Appeals) Deleted The Said Addition Of Rs.3,52,66,096/- After Referring To The Factual Matrix. Search Operations Were Conducted During The Relevant Year But No Incriminating Material/ Document Regarding Understatement Sale Transaction Was Found. The Documents/ Material Did Not Indicate That The Properties Were Sold For Higher Consideration, Than The Amount Mentioned In The Agreements. The Parties To Whom The Properties Were Sold Had Affirmed The Said Transaction & The Consideration Paid. The Cit(Appeals) Held That

Section 260ASection 55

…er to quantify the same by reference to the market value arrived at by the rent capitalization method in the absence of any material to show the precise extent of understatement. (See the observations of the Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 @ 616). In view of the failure of the Assessing Officer to conduct the necessary enquiries at the assessment stage and the factual findings recorded by the CIT(Appeals), which have been affirmed by the tribunal, we do not find any substantial question of law arises and the appeal is dismissed. No costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J.…