1. CIT Vs J.H. Golta 156ITR 323(SC) 2. Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT

259 ITR 51Supreme Court of India2003#5236 most cited

What is 1. CIT Vs J.H. Golta 156ITR 323(SC) 2. Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Finance Minister's speech introducing a bill can be relied upon to clarify the object and purpose of newly introduced provisions, particularly when the language of the section is ambiguous.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd v CIT · 259 ITR 51 SC · Finance Minister speech · interpretation of statutes · object and purpose of provisions · legislative intent · ambiguous language

Judgments citing 1. CIT Vs J.H. Golta 156ITR 323(SC) 2. Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3541/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…ience and perfect clarity.‟ We can do better than repeat the famous words of judge Learned Hand when he said.‟‟ The above observations of Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court was reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Industrial Corporation, 259 ITR 51 (SC) holding as under:- „‟That the Finance Minister‟s Speech can be relied upon to throw light on the object and purpose of the particular 10 ITA No.3541,3542,3543,4571-2012, provisions introduction by the Finance Bill has been recognized by this Court in K.P. Verghese - vs ITO 1981), 131 ITR 597 (SC), at 609. Again in the case of R & B Falcon (A…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Celetronix India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5433/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) बनधम/ Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C/O Jabil Circuit (I) Pvt.Ltd., Tax -8(1), Vs. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.103, Room No.210, 2Nd Floor, Road No.12, Opp Tunga Paradise, Aayaker Bhavan, Marol, Midc, Andheri (E), M K Road, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaact7548K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.81/Mum/2010 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, बनधम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 8(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms.Radha K NarangFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjiv Shah, Shailesh
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…referred to and relied upon. This principle has been reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghese Vis ITO and Others (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) and by Kerala High Court in Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd v/s CIT (2003) 259 ITR 51 (Ker), In the light of the omission of subsection 9 of section 10A in this year, the omission is held to be 10 CO No.81/M/2010 retrospective in effect to the extent of change in the ownership in the assessment year 2002-03 when such provision was made applicable with effect from AY 2004-05. Sub-section 9 of section 10A has been omitted without hav…