← All Phrases

“Section 159(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 159Section 159(4)15 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 159(4) is CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. (159 ITR 71), cited in 133 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 159(4)

CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd.
159 ITR 71 · 1986 · Supreme Court
133
citing judgments

The burden of proving an understatement of consideration or the receipt of 'on-money' lies solely with the Revenue, which must provide cogent evidence of actual receipt of higher consideration, beyond mere estimates or suspicion. Additions cannot be made based on assumptions like differences from circle rates without such evidence.

Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. v. CIT
289 ITR 83 · 2007 · Supreme Court
91
citing judgments

Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, being a penal provision, must be construed strictly and narrowly. The case also initially held that a clarificatory amendment was not retrospectively applicable, a view later reversed by a larger bench.

2.13. In Jawand Sons. v. CIT(A)
326 ITR 39 · 2010 · High Court
40
citing judgments

Following the amendment to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act in 1989, the Assessing Officer has broad powers to reopen assessments if they have reason to believe income has escaped assessment, even if the assessee made a full and true disclosure of material facts. This belief can be formed in any manner.

Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal
288 CTR 579 · 2016 · High Court
33
citing judgments

A statement recorded during a search under section 132(4) cannot form the sole basis for assessment additions unless corroborated by incriminating material recovered during the search. Post-search inquiry statements are also not considered incriminating material.

STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER
302 ITR 275 · 2008 · High Court
26
citing judgments

Information from the Enforcement Directorate indicating inflated purchases can serve as a valid basis for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, initiating reassessment proceedings.

CIT v. Surat Cotton
202 ITR 932 · 1993 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Income should be taxed only once in the hands of the rightful assessee; substantive assessments cannot be made simultaneously on multiple legal heirs.

159 Taxmann 392 CIT v. Gobind Ram (Punjab & Haryana) (ii) CIT vs. Gobind Ram
48 Taxmann.com 14 · 2014 · High Court
23
citing judgments

An addition cannot be made under section 69C for unexplained expenditure if the on-money/unaccounted receipts have already been considered as revenue receipts, as this would constitute double addition.

Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. (NCCL) v. DCIT
159 Taxmann.com 538 · ITAT
18
citing judgments

The discount on the issue of ESOPs, calculated as the difference between the grant price and the market price of shares on the date of grant, is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Judgments citing Section 159(4)