K.P. Vargheser v. ITO

131 ITR 587Supreme Court of India1981#16646 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 153D Section 292C Section 69 Section 69B

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4a)section 292c section 292 section 29 section 153d section 132a unexplained expenditure section 115bb section 115b section 69c section 133 section 131

Judgments citing K.P. Vargheser v. ITO

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Benglauru vs. Shri Kempareddy Govindraju, Domlur, Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1291/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…he assessee. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that addition of on money transaction in this case is not sustainable. 18. In this regard we place reliance of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of K.P. Vargheser v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 587, wherein it has been held that the burden of proving is that of Revenue when there is allegation of understatement on concealment in the consideration shown. Here we find that revenue has failed to discharge the burden cast on it. 19. We also place reliance from the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT v. Kalyansundaram [2007] 294 ITR 4…

ACIT, Circle CC 15, New Delhi vs. Alka Mendiratta, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1864/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 69

…n by bringing into play the meaning of terms used somewhere else in the Act by the legislature. d) There cannot be deeming within deeming while interpreting deeming provision. 16.3 The Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of K.P. Vargheser vs. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 587, had held that the burden of proving is that on the Revenue when there is allegation of understatement or concealment in the consideration shown. Further it had been held by Delhi High court in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Vatika Greenfield (P) Ltd (Supra) that the deeming provisions of the statue should be strictly interpreted and cannot be extended…

ACIT, CC-15, New Delhi vs. Yash Pal Mendiratta, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1863/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 69

Interworlds Shipping Agency Llc Dubai Uae, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 7805/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 90

…as not required to maintain statutorily anyway, cannot be put against the assessee. The assessee cannot be asked to prove a negative, as is the settled position in law in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of K P Varghese Vs ITO [(1981) 131 ITR 587 (SC)] wherein ITA No. 7805/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 8 of 9 Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed that “to throw the burden of showing that there is no understatement of the consideration on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish a negative, namely, that he did not receive any consideratio…

Shrimati Harmohinder Kaur, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Officer Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 568/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT- DR)

Section 250(6)Section 292C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Harmohinder Kaur Dy. CIT, H.No.10, Jyoti Nagar, Central Circle-II, Income Tax Colony, Vs. Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [PAN: AJJPK 9642E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna (Ld. CA) Respondent by: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT- DR) Date of hearing: 28.11.2019 Date of pronouncement: 16.01.2020 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee/Appellant against the impugned order dated 19.09.2018…