105 ITR 92 (SC); Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

4 SCC 378Supreme Court of India1975#4360 most cited

What is 105 ITR 92 (SC); Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra authority for?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and individuals are presumed to know the law of the land. Courts interpret, not create, law, and such ignorance cannot justify delays in legal proceedings.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Aphali Pharmaceuticals · Swadeshi Cotton Mills · ignorance of law · no excuse · delay in filing · legal position · deemed to know the law

Sections most often in play

Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)Section 23(2)(a)Section 23(2)(b)Section 23(3)(a)

Issues it is cited on

income from other sourcesprevious yearindiabusinesscompanyinterest

Judgments citing 105 ITR 92 (SC); Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1), MUMBAI vs. LAXMI FINANCE AND LEASING COMPANIES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 4233/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 23(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. Laxmi Finance of Income Tax-23(1) And Leasing Company Room No.511, Fifth Co-op Society Ltd. Floor, Piramal Laxmi Towres, Chambers, Lalbaug Plot C-25 Maharashtra-400 012 BKC, Bandra East Maharashtra-400 051 PAN/GIR No.AAAJL0006F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) CO No.125/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.4232/Mum/2023) (Assessment Year :2014-15) M/s. Laxmi Finance Vs. Deputy Commissioner of And Leasing Income Tax-23(1) Company Co-op Room No.511, Fifth Floo…

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

ITA 981/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Bhavasara Kshatriya Co- Operative Society Ltd., 279, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysureu-570 001. Pan – Aadat 2458 F Appelant Assessee By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 80P

…-operative Society associated by Advocates 8s Chartered Accountants and ignorance of law is no excuse. 3.2 In this regard, I may refer the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The Government of UP 8s Ors. (1975) 4 SCC 378, wherein held as follows:- "..... But we are in agreement with the High Court on the other two grounds. As mentioned earlier, the impugned assessments were made in 1949. The writ petition was filed in 1956. The explanation given by the petitioner for this long delay is that he did not know the correct legal position and he came to know about the sa…

MUDHOL PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMITA,MUDHOL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-2 , BAGALKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 767/BANG/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19 Mudhol Pattina Sahakari Sangh Niyamita Gokul Complex, Gandhi Circle Ito Mudhol Vs. Ward-2 Karnataka 587 313 Bagalkot

For Appellant: Shri Veeranna M. Murgod, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250

…o-operative Society associated by Advocates & Chartered Accountants and ignorance of law is no excuse. 3.2 In this regard, I may refer the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The Government of UP & Ors. (1975) 4 SCC 378, wherein held as follows: "..... But we are in agreement with the High Court on the other two grounds. As mentioned earlier, the impugned assessments were made M/s. Mudhol Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Mudhol Page 5 of 6 in 1949. The writ petition was filed in 1956. The explanation given by the petitioner for this long delay is that he did not…

PR.COMM.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/6/2017HC J&K13 Jul 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(f)Section 260ASection 40

…tion to deduct the TDS form the interest income paid by it to NOIDA on its fixed deposits lying with the Bank. The Supreme Court strongly relied upon the judgment of Dalco Engineering Private Limited vs. Satish Prabhakar Padhye and Others (2010) 4 SCC 378. This judgment of the Supreme Court was also followed in the later case of Union bank of India vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) (2022) 442 ITR 194 (SC) in respect of Agra Development Authority established/constituted under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. What was said by the Supreme C…

M/S. KAYPEE EXPORTERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 278/BANG/2023[Block Period 01.04.1997 to 03.04.2003]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 1997-2003

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 158B

…required to explain the delay. They are not illiterate and they very well know the law. Ignorance of law is no excuse. We may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Govt. of UP & Ors. (1975) 4 SCC 378 wherein it was held as follows:- “...But we are in agreement with the High Court on the other two grounds. As mentioned earlier, the impugned assessments were made in 1949. The writ petition was filed in 1956. The explanation given by the petitioner for this long delay is that he did not know the correct legal position and he came to know about the…

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

…required to explain the delay. They are not illiterate and they very well know the law. Ignorance of law is no excuse. We may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Govt. of UP & Ors. (1975) 4 SCC 378 wherein it was held as follows:- “..... But we are in agreement with the High Court on the other two grounds. As mentioned earlier, the impugned assessments were made in 1949. The writ petition was filed in 1956. The explanation M/s. RMZ Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore Page 9 of 79 given by the petitioner for this long delay is that he did not…

SHRI. KHADARI SYYEADHUSENPEERA SYYEADKHAJAAMIN,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, , BENGALURU

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1172/BANG/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(1)Section 201Section 250Section 40

…now the law. Ignorance of law is no excuse. We may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Swadeshi Cotton Khadari Syyeadhusenpeera Syyeadkhajaamin, Amingadm Karnataka Page 5 of 9` Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Govt. of UP & Ors. (1975) 4 SCC 378 wherein it was held as follows:- “..... But we are in agreement with the High Court on the other two grounds. As mentioned earlier, the impugned assessments were made in 1949. The writ petition was filed in 1956. The explanation given by the petitioner for this long delay is that he did not know the correct legal position and he came to know about…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…without profit motive will not result in “trade, commerce or business” in terms of the decision in State of A.P v. H. Abdul Bakhi & Bros63. If exemption is not granted to the assessee it will face a liability of around ₹300 61 1965 (1) SCR 614 62 (2010) 4 SCC 378 63 1964 (7) SCR 664 38 crore (from FY-2007-08 to 2020-21), which given its financial condition will jeopardise its existence and functioning. 59. Ms. Radhika Suri, learned counsel argued on behalf of Bhatinda Improvement Trust and adopted the submissions of Mr. Soparkar. She urged, in addition, that it is obligatory on part of the assess…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S LAXMI FINANCE & LEASING COMPANIES COMMERCIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOC. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1689/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 23(1) V. M/S. Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Room No. 113, 1St Floor Co-Op. Soc., Limited Matru Mandir, Tardev Road C-25, G-Block, Mumbai – 400 007 Laxmi Towers, Near Icici Bank Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aabal0964G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 23(1)(a)

…Bladnoch Distillery Co. Ltd. [1948] 1 All ER 616 ; CST v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. [1961] 12 STC 182 (SC); CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm, Muar, AIR 1965 SC 1216; CED v. Kantilal Trikamlal [1976] 105 ITR 92 (SC); Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1989] 4 SCC 378 ; Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. Excise Commissioner AIR 1971 SC 378. The question as to what is covered must be found out from the language according to its natural meaning fairly and squarely read. IRC v. Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 (HL), A.V. Fernandez's case (supra) Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Haryana State Board [1992] 1 SCC 418). The…

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 680/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Sri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43ASection 43B

…required to explain the delay. They are not illiterate and they very well know the law. Ignorance of law is no excuse. We may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Govt. of UP & Ors. (1975) 4 SCC 378 wherein it was held as follows:- “….. But we are in agreement with the High Court on the other two grounds. As mentioned earlier, the impugned assessments were made in 1949. The writ petition was filed in 1956. The explanation given by the petitioner for this long delay is that he did not know the correct legal position and he came to know about th…

M/S. KINFRA EXPORT PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARKS LTD., vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)

ITA/65/2018HC Kerala07 Apr 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 260A

…A proviso is introduced to indicate the effect of certain things which are within the statute but accompanied with the peculiar conditions embraced within the proviso. It modifies the immediately preceding language. (James 9(1977 2 SCC 548), 10(1989 4 SCC 378). 11(1985 1 SCC 591 ITA Nos.62&65/2018 31 DeWitt Andrews- statutory construction) 15.5. The purpose and functions of a proviso are set out in great detail by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. VKC Footsteps (India) (P) ltd12 in para 91 to 94, read thus: “Construing the proviso. 91. Provisos in a statute have multi-faceted person…

ASST CIT 18(2), MUMBAI vs. LAXMI FINANCE & LEASING COMPANIES COMMERICAL PREMISES CO OP SOC. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4708/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2021AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)

…ladnoch Distillery Co. Ltd. [1948] 1 All ER 616 ; CST v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. [1961] 12 STC 182 (SC); CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm, Muar, AIR 1965 SC 1216 ; CED v. Kantilal Trikamlal [1976] 105 ITR 92 (SC); Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1989] 4 SCC 378 ; Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. Excise Commissioner AIR 1971 SC 378. The question as to what is covered must be found out from the language according to its natural meaning fairly and squarely read. IRC v. Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 (HL), A.V. Fernandez's case (supra) Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Haryana State Board [1992] 1 SCC 418). The…

DR ARATHI SATISH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/1143/2021HC Karnataka30 Mar 2021

Bench: The Hon' Ble Mr.Justice R. Devdas

…fore, the dictum - ignorance of the provisions of law cannot be an excuse for implementation is pressed into service. The learned AAG has placed reliance on the decisions in The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., Vs. The Government of U.P. and Others (1975) 4 SCC 378 and State of Bihar and Others Vs. Bihar Distillery 120 and Others (1997) 2 SCC 453, in support of his contention. There can be no doubt about the proposition that ignorance of law is no excuse, but in the present context, students from across the country and in fact from overseas seek admission to Medical courses/PG courses/Super S…

DR FERNANDES ELFRIDA WILFRED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/830/2021HC Karnataka30 Mar 2021

Bench: The Hon' Ble Mr.Justice R. Devdas

…fore, the dictum - ignorance of the provisions of law cannot be an excuse for implementation is pressed into service. The learned AAG has placed reliance on the decisions in The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., Vs. The Government of U.P. and Others (1975) 4 SCC 378 and State of Bihar and Others Vs. Bihar Distillery 120 and Others (1997) 2 SCC 453, in support of his contention. There can be no doubt about the proposition that ignorance of law is no excuse, but in the present context, students from across the country and in fact from overseas seek admission to Medical courses/PG courses/Super S…

DR JOYCE SALU JOHN vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/745/2021HC Karnataka30 Mar 2021

Bench: The Hon' Ble Mr.Justice R. Devdas

…fore, the dictum - ignorance of the provisions of law cannot be an excuse for implementation is pressed into service. The learned AAG has placed reliance on the decisions in The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., Vs. The Government of U.P. and Others (1975) 4 SCC 378 and State of Bihar and Others Vs. Bihar Distillery 120 and Others (1997) 2 SCC 453, in support of his contention. There can be no doubt about the proposition that ignorance of law is no excuse, but in the present context, students from across the country and in fact from overseas seek admission to Medical courses/PG courses/Super S…

ARVIND METALS & MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1785/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

Section 124Section 143(3)

…erit in the case of the assessee for condonation of delay. This is not a case wherein the appellant is an illiterate person, who may not know the repercussion in law. The Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Government of U.P. [1974] 4 SCC 378, has held that ignorance of law is not an excuse for not taking appropriate steps within limitation. Keeping in view of above, the request of the appellate for condonation of delay of appeal is hereby rejected.” 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. We make it clear that the assessee’s sole grievance at this stage is o…

BLUE WATER PICTURE & PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.WARD-4(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 415/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.415/Kol/2019 (िनधा"रणवष"S / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Blue Water Pictures & Vs. Ito, Ward-4(2), Kolkata Productions

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 249

…of the assessee stating that ignorance of law is not an excuse for not taking appropriate steps within limitation and for that he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Govt. of UP reported in [1975] 4 SCC 378 (SC) . 3. We note that during the appellate stage the assessee had explained the reasons for delay as follows: “Due to Durga Puja and Lakshmi Puja in Kolkata, the offices were closed for seven days.” We note that assessee could not file the appeal before the ld CIT(A) within the time limit prescribed by the Act due to Durga Puja festival and Laks…

M/S UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2622/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263

…//Fit for Publication// OPK BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. AND SHRI O.P. KANT, A.M. I.T.A.No.2622/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Uttarakhand Purv The ACIT, Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited, Dehradun. vs. Circle-2, PAN AAACU7129D C/o. Hemant Arora & Co. Dehradun. C.As, 1-Tyagi Road, Dehradun - 248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rohit Tiwari & Shri Sanjay Malik, Advocates For Revenue : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 23.01.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR vs. CANARA BANK

The appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-006020-006020 - 2018Supreme Court02 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 194ASection 3

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6020 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 3168 OF 2017) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS) ... APPELLANTS KANPUR AND ANR. VERSUS CANARA BANK ... RESPONDENT WITH C.A.NO.6064 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.9295/2017, C.A.NO.6056 of 2018 2018 @ SLP (C)No.3162/2017, C.A.NO.6058 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.9292/2017, C.A.NO.6055 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.3163/2017, C.A.NO.6060 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.9294/2017, C.A.NO.6057of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 9288/2017, C.A.NO.6054 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 3169/2017, C.A.NO.6066 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.9290/2017, C.A.NO…

ITO (TDS-1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SUKHM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 638/CHANDI/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Amitoz Singh Kamboj, CA
Section 194ASection 194CSection 201(1)

…distinction between a corporation established under an Act and body incorporated under an Act. The Hon'ble High Court while replying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalco Engineering (P.) Ltd. v. Satish Prabhakar Padhye [2010] 4 SCC 378 has observed that a company incorporated under the Companies Act is not created by the Company Act but comes into existence in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and that there was a well-marked distinction between body created by a statute and a body which after coming into existence is governed in accordance with the provisions of a…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

105 ITR 92 (SC); Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (4 SCC 378) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax