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.

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 597)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Company Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2472/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2322/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) ITA No.2324/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, A-7/2, Shivaji Apartments, Sector 14, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. (PAN : AADCB7702J) ITA No.2473/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) ITA No.2752/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) ITA No.2754/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) ITA Nos.2472 & 2473/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 DCIT, Ce…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2324/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2322/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) ITA No.2324/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, A-7/2, Shivaji Apartments, Sector 14, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. (PAN : AADCB7702J) ITA No.2473/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) ITA No.2752/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) ITA No.2754/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) ITA Nos.2472 & 2473/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 DCIT, Ce…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -3, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2323/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2322/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) ITA No.2324/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, A-7/2, Shivaji Apartments, Sector 14, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. (PAN : AADCB7702J) ITA No.2473/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) ITA No.2752/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) ITA No.2754/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) ITA Nos.2472 & 2473/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 DCIT, Ce…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2322/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2322/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) ITA No.2324/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, A-7/2, Shivaji Apartments, Sector 14, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. (PAN : AADCB7702J) ITA No.2473/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) ITA No.2752/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) ITA No.2754/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) ITA Nos.2472 & 2473/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 DCIT, Ce…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2321/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2322/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) ITA No.2324/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, A-7/2, Shivaji Apartments, Sector 14, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. (PAN : AADCB7702J) ITA No.2473/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) ITA No.2752/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) ITA No.2754/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) ITA Nos.2472 & 2473/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.2751 to 2754/DEL/2023 DCIT, Ce…

Shree Maya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 228/NAG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JakhotiaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 43C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.227/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) ITA no.228/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2019–20) Shree Maya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 25, Red Cross Road, Sadar, Nagpur 440 001 ……………. Appellant PAN – AAJCS1078E v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(1), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Naresh Jakhotia Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 07/08/2024 Date of Order – 02/09/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the a…

Shree Maya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JakhotiaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 43C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.227/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) ITA no.228/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2019–20) Shree Maya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 25, Red Cross Road, Sadar, Nagpur 440 001 ……………. Appellant PAN – AAJCS1078E v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(1), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Naresh Jakhotia Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 07/08/2024 Date of Order – 02/09/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the a…

Brahman Sabha Karveer, Maharashtra vs. CIT Exemption Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 795/PUN/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 13(3)Section 36ASection 41Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…No.795/PUN./2024 7. In this background we have to interpret the relevant provisions. To interpret the provisions, we shall refer to the Budget Speech of the Hon’ble Finance Minister. 7.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghese Vs. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) has observed as under regarding use of Speech of a Minister as a tool in interpretation : Quote , “ 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 th…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…rom assessee. It is submitted that It is submitted that in the instant case such burden has not been discharged by revenue and in absence thereof addition made is not in accordance with law. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese v. ITO ii) 159 ITR 71 (SC) CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. iii) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan “The appeals relate to the asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee is a Muslim lady who was aged about 20 years during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1968-69. On 15th November, 1967, she had purchased 16…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…rom assessee. It is submitted that It is submitted that in the instant case such burden has not been discharged by revenue and in absence thereof addition made is not in accordance with law. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese v. ITO ii) 159 ITR 71 (SC) CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. iii) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan “The appeals relate to the asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee is a Muslim lady who was aged about 20 years during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1968-69. On 15th November, 1967, she had purchased 16…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…rom assessee. It is submitted that It is submitted that in the instant case such burden has not been discharged by revenue and in absence thereof addition made is not in accordance with law. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese v. ITO ii) 159 ITR 71 (SC) CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. iii) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan “The appeals relate to the asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee is a Muslim lady who was aged about 20 years during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1968-69. On 15th November, 1967, she had purchased 16…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…rom assessee. It is submitted that It is submitted that in the instant case such burden has not been discharged by revenue and in absence thereof addition made is not in accordance with law. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese v. ITO ii) 159 ITR 71 (SC) CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. iii) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan “The appeals relate to the asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee is a Muslim lady who was aged about 20 years during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1968-69. On 15th November, 1967, she had purchased 16…

Income Tax Officer, Asher It Park, Wagle Estate, Thane vs. Thane Jillha Prathamik Sikshak Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Thane

Accordingly, all the ground raised by the Revenue in appeal for the Assessment Year 2020-21 are dismissed

ITA 3434/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.D. ChouguleFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparikh

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…Firstly, the marginal note to section 80P which reads "Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies" is important, in that it indicates the general "drift" of the provision. This was so held by this Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 as follows: "9. This interpretation of sub-section (2) is strongly supported by the marginal note to Section 52 which reads "Consideration for transfer in cases of understatement". It is undoubtedly true that the marginal note to a section cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the section but it can certainly be relied upon as indic…

Income Tax Officer, Ashar It Park, Thane vs. Thane Jillha Prathamik Sikshak Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Wagle Estate, Thane

Accordingly, all the ground raised by the Revenue in appeal for the Assessment Year 2020-21 are dismissed

ITA 3433/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.D. ChouguleFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparikh

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…Firstly, the marginal note to section 80P which reads "Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies" is important, in that it indicates the general "drift" of the provision. This was so held by this Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 as follows: "9. This interpretation of sub-section (2) is strongly supported by the marginal note to Section 52 which reads "Consideration for transfer in cases of understatement". It is undoubtedly true that the marginal note to a section cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the section but it can certainly be relied upon as indic…

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Vishwakarmasarkshankamgarsahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 451/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.450 & 451/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2017-18 &2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Vishwakarma Sarkshan Pune. S Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, 185, Vishwakarma Bhuwan, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaajv0492M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Cross Objection Nos.23 & 24/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.450 & 451/Pun/2024) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishwakarma Sarkshan V The Income Tax Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha S Officer, Maryadit, 185, Vishwakarma Pune. Bhuwan, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaajv0492M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranikh – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals For Two Separate Assessment Years I.E.2017-18 & 2018-19 Against Two Separate Orders Of

Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…. Firstly, the marginal note to section 80P which reads "Deduction in respectof income of co-operative societies" is important, in that it indicates the general "drift" of the provision. Thiswas so held by this Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 as follows: "9. This interpretation of sub-section (2) is strongly supported by the marginal note to Section 52 whichreads "Consideration for transfer in cases of understatement". It is undoubtedly true that the marginalnote to a section cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the ITA Nos.450 & 451/PUN/2024 and C.O.Nos.23 & 24/PUN/202…

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Vishwakarma Sarkshan Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 450/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.450 & 451/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2017-18 &2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Vishwakarma Sarkshan Pune. S Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, 185, Vishwakarma Bhuwan, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaajv0492M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Cross Objection Nos.23 & 24/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.450 & 451/Pun/2024) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishwakarma Sarkshan V The Income Tax Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha S Officer, Maryadit, 185, Vishwakarma Pune. Bhuwan, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaajv0492M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranikh – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals For Two Separate Assessment Years I.E.2017-18 & 2018-19 Against Two Separate Orders Of

Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…. Firstly, the marginal note to section 80P which reads "Deduction in respectof income of co-operative societies" is important, in that it indicates the general "drift" of the provision. Thiswas so held by this Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 as follows: "9. This interpretation of sub-section (2) is strongly supported by the marginal note to Section 52 whichreads "Consideration for transfer in cases of understatement". It is undoubtedly true that the marginalnote to a section cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the ITA Nos.450 & 451/PUN/2024 and C.O.Nos.23 & 24/PUN/202…

Vasundhara Bahuddeshiya Samajik Sanstha, Khamgaon vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeal by appellant trust stands partly allowed

ITA 1145/PUN/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Aug 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Kumar (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…ry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is later; 7. We are also fortified in adopting the above construction by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC). 8. Adverting to the facts of the present case, undisputedly, the appellant trust commenced its actual activities in the F.Y. 2009-10 and in view of the above construction of clause (iii) of proviso to section 80G(5) the appellant trust is entitled to file the application for regular approval prior to six months of expiry of the provisional…

R L Education Sanstha, Paithan vs. CIT(Exemption) Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal by appellant trust stands partly allowed

ITA 806/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

…ry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is later; 9. We are also fortified in adopting the above construction by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC). 10. Adverting to the facts of the present case, undisputedly, the appellant trust commenced its actual activities on 16.03.2011 and in view of the above construction of clause (iii) of proviso to section 80G(5) the appellant trust is entitled to file the application for regular approval prior to six months of expiry of the provisional appr…

Anwar M. Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-20(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2669/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SRDR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

…Lalal Bansal [2011] 335 ITR 572 / 200 Taxman 188 (Mag.)/12 taxmann.com 88 (Delhi). It has been repeatedly held that addition cannot be justified solely relying upon the valuation report. Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 / 7 Taxman 13 has been followed.” Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the caser of CIT, Chenai vs VummudiAmarendran (2020) 120 Taxman 171 (Madras), held as under: - “12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kolkata Export Company took note of the earlier decisions on the same issue in the case of Allied Motors Private Limited Vs. CIT [1997 (224) ITR 677 (S…

Shri Gangadhar Shastri Patwardhan Trust, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 786/PUN/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…iry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is later; 9. We are also fortified in adopting the above construction by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC). 10. Adverting to the facts of the present case, undisputedly, the appellant trust commenced its actual activities on 15.10.2021 and in view of the above construction of clause (iii) of proviso to section 80G(5) the appellant trust is entitled to file the application for regular approval prior to six months of expiry of the provisional appr…

K.P. Varghese v. ITO

What is K.P. Varghese v. ITO authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing K.P. Varghese v. ITO

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Brij Gopal Construction Company Private Limited, Delhi

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -3, New Delhi

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

Shree Maya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

Shree Maya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

Brahman Sabha Karveer, Maharashtra vs. CIT Exemption Pune

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Income Tax Officer, Asher It Park, Wagle Estate, Thane vs. Thane Jillha Prathamik Sikshak Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Thane

Income Tax Officer, Ashar It Park, Thane vs. Thane Jillha Prathamik Sikshak Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Wagle Estate, Thane

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Vishwakarmasarkshankamgarsahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Vishwakarma Sarkshan Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune

Vasundhara Bahuddeshiya Samajik Sanstha, Khamgaon vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

R L Education Sanstha, Paithan vs. CIT(Exemption) Pune, Pune

Anwar M. Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-20(1), Mumbai

Shri Gangadhar Shastri Patwardhan Trust, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune