Sri Krishna v. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376

184 ITR 404High Court1990#3782 most cited

What is Sri Krishna v. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 authority for?

An admission or acquiescence cannot be the sole foundation for an assessment; an assessee can always demonstrate that a particular income is not taxable in their hands.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sri Krishna v. Kurukshetra University · Abdul Qayume v. CIT · admission · acquiescence · foundation of assessment · taxable income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147Section 132(4)Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 69CSection 133A

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 65(b)section 181section 194qsection 193section 65b(4)section 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 158bbretracted statementsection 158b(b)section 65b

Judgments citing Sri Krishna v. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5677/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…income. In support he strongly referred and relied upon the following judgments: (a) S.S. Gadgil Vs Lal and Co. 53 ITR 231(SC) (b) CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC) (c) Vijay Gupta [2016] 68 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi) (d) Abdul Qayume Vs CIT (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All) (e) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd.Vs CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) (f) CIT Vs Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Limited. 81 ITR 303 (Delhi) (g) R. Seshammal vs ITO 237 ITR 185 (Madras) (h) CIT Vs Bhawani Singhji [2018] 99 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi) (i) Shri Vipul P. Dalal Vs. DCIT - 12(2) 2016-LL-0603-1]- ITAT Mumbai (j) DCIT vs. Lab India Instruments (P) Lt…

Anant Raj Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-2, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5169/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…income. In support he strongly referred and relied upon the following judgments: (a) S.S. Gadgil Vs Lal and Co. 53 ITR 231(SC) (b) CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC) (c) Vijay Gupta [2016] 68 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi) (d) Abdul Qayume Vs CIT (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All) (e) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd.Vs CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) (f) CIT Vs Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Limited. 81 ITR 303 (Delhi) (g) R. Seshammal vs ITO 237 ITR 185 (Madras) (h) CIT Vs Bhawani Singhji [2018] 99 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi) (i) Shri Vipul P. Dalal Vs. DCIT - 12(2) 2016-LL-0603-1]- ITAT Mumbai (j) DCIT vs. Lab India Instruments (P) Lt…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…n to the assessee. 1.10 It is respectfully submitted that, it is settled law that, an admission or acquiescence cannot be foundation for assessment, as has been held in the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Qayum v CIT reported in 184 ITR 404. It is further submitted that, admission made by the assessee is an important piece of ITA Nos. 4964 to 4966/Del/2012 15 evidence, but it cannot be held to be conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect as has been held in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. Swift of Kerala by Apex Co…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…n to the assessee. 1.10 It is respectfully submitted that, it is settled law that, an admission or acquiescence cannot be foundation for assessment, as has been held in the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Qayum v CIT reported in 184 ITR 404. It is further submitted that, admission made by the assessee is an important piece of ITA Nos. 4964 to 4966/Del/2012 15 evidence, but it cannot be held to be conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect as has been held in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. Swift of Kerala by Apex Co…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…n to the assessee. 1.10 It is respectfully submitted that, it is settled law that, an admission or acquiescence cannot be foundation for assessment, as has been held in the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Qayum v CIT reported in 184 ITR 404. It is further submitted that, admission made by the assessee is an important piece of ITA Nos. 4964 to 4966/Del/2012 15 evidence, but it cannot be held to be conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect as has been held in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. Swift of Kerala by Apex Co…

M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…nnot be made basis of the assessment. Reliance is placed on the following cases- ACIT vs. Satya Narayan Agarwalla 255ITR 69 18 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 Abdul Qaymme vs. CIT 184 ITR 404 27. The ld. Counsel submitted that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act has been initiated on the basis of material obtained behind the back of the assessee and assessee should be provided with the information under ld PR CIT possession along with an opportunity to cross examine the alleged entry operators. In this regard our attention was drawn to th…

M/S. Cliff Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…nnot be made basis of the assessment. Reliance is placed on the following cases- ACIT vs. Satya Narayan Agarwalla 255ITR 69 18 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 Abdul Qaymme vs. CIT 184 ITR 404 27. The ld. Counsel submitted that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act has been initiated on the basis of material obtained behind the back of the assessee and assessee should be provided with the information under ld PR CIT possession along with an opportunity to cross examine the alleged entry operators. In this regard our attention was drawn to th…

M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…nnot be made basis of the assessment. Reliance is placed on the following cases- ACIT vs. Satya Narayan Agarwalla 255ITR 69 18 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 Abdul Qaymme vs. CIT 184 ITR 404 27. The ld. Counsel submitted that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act has been initiated on the basis of material obtained behind the back of the assessee and assessee should be provided with the information under ld PR CIT possession along with an opportunity to cross examine the alleged entry operators. In this regard our attention was drawn to th…

Paliwal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…he assessee placed reliance in the following case – CIT V/s M/s Maverick Share Brokers P. Ltd 57 TW 87(Raj.) CIT Vs. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.)(HC). CIT Vs. Satyanorayan Agarwal (2002) 255 ITR (AT) 69 (Kol.) (Trib.) Abdul Qaymme Vs. CIT (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All.) (HC) CITVs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Raj.) (HC). M/s. Paliwal Jewellers. The ld. Counsel submitted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued fresh instruction vide F.No. 286/98/2013-IT (INV.II) dated 18.12.2014, the text of which is reproduced below: - 1. “Instances / complaints of undue influence/ coercion have come…

Parvatiben Damji Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 3181/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3181/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Smt. Parvatiben Damji Shah, The Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ 602, Aashish Apartment, 21(1)(4), V. Tilak Mandir Road, C-10, 6 Th Floor, Vile Parle(East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 057. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaqps2114K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69A

…Co. Ltd. , 91 ITR 18 (SC) 2. Vinod Solanki v. UOI Civil Appeal No. 7407 of 2008 arising out of SLP (C) No. 3537 of 2008 dated 18th December, 2008 (UOI (233) ELT 157 (SC). 3. CIT v. Uttamchand Jain (Bom) IT Appeal No. 634 of 2009. 4. Abdul Qaymme v. CIT (1990) 184 ITR 404 5. ITAT Bangalore Bench decision in the case of Carpenters Classics (Exim) (p) Ltd. v. DCIT 108 ITD 142. 6. Surendra Kumar Charanjeet Kumar Singh v. CIT 282 ITR 78 (P&H HC) 7. Bacchitarsingh v. CIT 328 ITR 400(P&H HC). The learned CIT(A) observed that the contention of the assessee that statement recorded during the course of survey was not volu…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…e while filing the return of income. 14.14 Reliance, in this regard, has been placed on the following decisions: − Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT: 66 ITR 647 (All.) − CIT vs. Bharat General Re-Insurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303(Del.) − Abdul Qayume V. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) − Smt Snehlata Jain vs. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K) − S.R. Koshti vs. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.) − Ester Industries Ltd. vs. CIT: 316 ITR 260 (Del.) − DCIT vs. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag) − Jyotsana Holding (P) Ltd. vs. ITO: 37 ITD 430 (Del.) − Indo Java & Co. vs. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB) 14.15 Further, it is also settled law that the p…