P Varghese v. ITO

24 CTR 358Supreme Court of India1981#4645 most cited

What is P Varghese v. ITO authority for?

The Revenue must prove that the assessee received more consideration than declared when challenging a sale transaction. The declared sale consideration is accepted unless evidence proves otherwise.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

P Varghese v ITO · section 52(2) · declared sale consideration · burden of proof · onus on revenue · excess consideration · valuation · fair market value · Stamp Duty Value · cash credits

Judgments citing P Varghese v. ITO

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result appeals bearing No

ITA 526/MUM/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ashok D. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Srivastava, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…d only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search or requisition of documents. The Hon’ble High Court while reproducing the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “K P Varghese v. ITO” (1981) 24 CTR 358 “that it is recognized rule of construction that a statutory proviso must be so construed, if possible, that absurdity and mischief may be avoided” has observed that if the argument of the counsel for the assessee was to be accepted, it would mean that even in case where the appeal arises out of the completed assessment has been decided by the CIT…

Mrs. Sumanlata Bansal, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result appeals bearing No

ITA 525/MUM/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ashok D. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Srivastava, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…d only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search or requisition of documents. The Hon’ble High Court while reproducing the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “K P Varghese v. ITO” (1981) 24 CTR 358 “that it is recognized rule of construction that a statutory proviso must be so construed, if possible, that absurdity and mischief may be avoided” has observed that if the argument of the counsel for the assessee was to be accepted, it would mean that even in case where the appeal arises out of the completed assessment has been decided by the CIT…

D.C.I.T Cir - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S Celica Developers Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1233/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 263

…e book value and the market value amounts to the STCG. In the similar facts and circumstances of the present case in hand, various courts have decided this issue in favour of assessee and relevant case laws cited below:- a) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO & Anr. (2981) 24 CTR 358 (SC), wherein the head-note:- Capital gains—Applicability of s. 52(2)—Understatement of consideration—If, the Revenue seeks to bring a case within sub-s. (2), it must show not only that the fair market value of the capital asset as on the date of the transfer exceeds the full value of the consideration declared by the assessee by not less than 15…

ACIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai vs. Vishal Jayendra. Jhaveri, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2147/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,एफ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member ITA NOs.2146 & 2147/Mum/2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06 and 2006-07 ACIT, Shri Vishal Jayendra Jhaveri CC.33, Room No.32(2), 29, Nidhi Khotachi Wadi, बनाम/ Ground Floor, 1st Floor, S.V.P. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400004 M.K.Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.ACPPJ9859F Cross Objection No.284 & 285/Mum/2013…

ACIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai vs. Vishal Jayendra. Jhaveri, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2146/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,एफ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member ITA NOs.2146 & 2147/Mum/2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06 and 2006-07 ACIT, Shri Vishal Jayendra Jhaveri CC.33, Room No.32(2), 29, Nidhi Khotachi Wadi, बनाम/ Ground Floor, 1st Floor, S.V.P. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400004 M.K.Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.ACPPJ9859F Cross Objection No.284 & 285/Mum/2013…