K.P. Varghese v. ITO

359 ITR 398High Court2013#4850 most cited

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

An addition to income cannot be justified solely based on a valuation report. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the information collected and form a belief before reopening an assessment.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Also referred to as

K.P. Varghese v. ITO · valuation report · addition to income · reopening assessment · section 147 · AO's belief · DVO's report

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 131(1)(d)section 55asection 142(2)section 38section 142asection 131(1)section 55circle ratesection 158bcsection 269section 69b

Judgments citing K.P. Varghese v. ITO

Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Concord Drugs Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl.No. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent 1 to 3 1901 to 2006-07 Concord Drugs Dy. 1903/Hyd/ to Ltd., Commissioner of 2017 2008-09 Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 1(2), PAN – Hyderabad. AAACC8171D 4 to 6 1152/ to -do- Dy. Concord Drugs 1154Hyd/ Commissioner Ltd., Hyderabad. 2014 of Income-tax, Circle – 1(2), PAN – Hyderabad. AAACC8171D 7 to 9 SA Nos. Concord Drugs Dy. 81, 82 & -do- Ltd., Commissioner of 83/H/2018 Hyderabad. Income-tax, (in ITA Circle – 1(2),…

DCIT vs. Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3211/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142ASection 154Section 68

…ng the books of account:- (i) CIT vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society (2011) 339 ITR 588 (All); (ii) CIT vs. Subhash Chandra Gupta (2014) 105 DTR 295 (All); (iii) CIT & Ors. Vs. Asha Chaurasia & Ors. (2017) 98 CCH 85 (All); (iv) Nirpal Singh vs. CIT (2013) 359 ITR 398 (P&H); (v) Pr. CIT vs. Sanjay Hiralal Thakkar (2016) 97 CCH 168 (Guj); and (vi) CIT vs. Vijaykumar D. Gupta (2014) 365 ITR 470 (Guj). 9. He accordingly submitted that since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has not rejected the books of account before referring the matter to the DVO, therefore, the same is not in accordance with the law.…

DCIT vs. Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2370/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142ASection 154Section 68

…ng the books of account:- (i) CIT vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society (2011) 339 ITR 588 (All); (ii) CIT vs. Subhash Chandra Gupta (2014) 105 DTR 295 (All); (iii) CIT & Ors. Vs. Asha Chaurasia & Ors. (2017) 98 CCH 85 (All); (iv) Nirpal Singh vs. CIT (2013) 359 ITR 398 (P&H); (v) Pr. CIT vs. Sanjay Hiralal Thakkar (2016) 97 CCH 168 (Guj); and (vi) CIT vs. Vijaykumar D. Gupta (2014) 365 ITR 470 (Guj). 9. He accordingly submitted that since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has not rejected the books of account before referring the matter to the DVO, therefore, the same is not in accordance with the law.…

Parmarth Iron (P) Ltd vs. ACIT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1992/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142ASection 154Section 68

…ng the books of account:- (i) CIT vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society (2011) 339 ITR 588 (All); (ii) CIT vs. Subhash Chandra Gupta (2014) 105 DTR 295 (All); (iii) CIT & Ors. Vs. Asha Chaurasia & Ors. (2017) 98 CCH 85 (All); (iv) Nirpal Singh vs. CIT (2013) 359 ITR 398 (P&H); (v) Pr. CIT vs. Sanjay Hiralal Thakkar (2016) 97 CCH 168 (Guj); and (vi) CIT vs. Vijaykumar D. Gupta (2014) 365 ITR 470 (Guj). 9. He accordingly submitted that since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has not rejected the books of account before referring the matter to the DVO, therefore, the same is not in accordance with the law.…