14 In Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs

6 SCC 564Reported decision1997#516 most cited

What is 14 In Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs authority for?

Sun Export Corporation held that any ambiguity in a tax exemption provision or notification must be interpreted in favor of the assessee or the subject.

184

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sun Export Corporation · 6 SCC 564 · tax exemption interpretation · ambiguity in tax law · assessee friendly interpretation · fiscal statute construction · exemption notification ambiguity · statutory interpretation rule · overruled by Dilip Kumar · Collector of Customs

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 115JCSection 131(d)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

tax collected at sourcesection 200a(1)(c)section 200a(1)section 206csection 206section 200(3)section 200asection 234esection 200tax deducted at sourcesection 201section 20

Judgments citing 14 In Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs

Lalchnd Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 109/CTK/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Sabat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, CIT-DR
Section 1(2)(a)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 36Section 43B

…riginated from case laws mentioned in ensuing paras that if two views are possible in interpreting the provisions of law in taxation, the one favourable to the assessee has to be preferred. 7.14 In Sun Export Corporation, Bombay vs Collector of Customs (1997) 6 SCC 564 it was observed that “even assuming that there are two views possible, it is well settled that one favourable to the assessee in matters of taxation has to be preferred.”. 7.14 In CIT vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC) it has held that provisions for deduction, exemption and relief should be interpreted liberally, reasonab…

Lalchnd Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 108/CTK/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Sabat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, CIT-DR
Section 1(2)(a)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 36Section 43B

…riginated from case laws mentioned in ensuing paras that if two views are possible in interpreting the provisions of law in taxation, the one favourable to the assessee has to be preferred. 7.14 In Sun Export Corporation, Bombay vs Collector of Customs (1997) 6 SCC 564 it was observed that “even assuming that there are two views possible, it is well settled that one favourable to the assessee in matters of taxation has to be preferred.”. 7.14 In CIT vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC) it has held that provisions for deduction, exemption and relief should be interpreted liberally, reasonab…

Pashupati Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/CTK/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam,CIT-DR
Section 1(2)(a)Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36Section 43B

…riginated from case laws mentioned in ensuing paras that if two views are possible in interpreting the provisions of law in taxation, the one favourable to the assessee has to be preferred. 7.14 In Sun Export Corporation, Bombay vs Collector of Customs (1997) 6 SCC 564 it was observed that “even assuming that there 9 are two views possible, it is well settled that one favourable to the assessee in matters of taxation has to be preferred.”. 7.14 In CIT vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC) it has held that provisions for deduction, exemption and relief should be interpreted liberally, reaso…

Dinesh Pratap Singh, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/CTK/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack06 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.100/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Dinesh Pratap Singh, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack At-Hudiashi, Near Nac Gate, Joda, Keonjhar Pan No. : Baaps 4341 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattanaik, Ar : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Made Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is With Regard To Confirming The Addition Of Rs.7,60,679/- Towards Late Payment Of Employees Contribution To Provident Fund & Esi. 3. In The Instant Appeal, On Perusal Of The Assessment Record, We Found That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income Electronically On 02.10.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.62,47,268/-. The Ao Made Addition On Account Of Delay In Depositing Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi, Which Has Also Been Confirmed By The Cit(A). In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee In His Written Submissions, Placed Before Us, At Page 4

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattanaik, AR
Section 1(2)(a)Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36Section 43B

…riginated from case laws mentioned in ensuing paras that if two views are possible in interpreting the provisions of law in taxation, the one favourable to the assessee has to be preferred. 7.14 In Sun Export Corporation, Bombay vs Collector of Customs (1997) 6 SCC 564 it was observed that “even assuming that there are two views possible, it is well settled that one favourable to the assessee in matters of taxation has to be preferred.”. 7.14 In CIT vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC) it has held that provisions for deduction, exemption and relief should be interpreted liberally, reasonab…

Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 358/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 68

…riginated from case laws mentioned in ensuing paras that if two views are possible in interpreting the provisions of law in taxation, the one favourable to the assessee has to be preferred. 7.14 In Sun Export Corporation, Bombay vs Collector of Customs (1997) 6 SCC 564 it was observed that “even assuming that there are two views possible, it is well settled that one favourable to the assessee in matters of taxation has to be preferred.”. 7.14 In CIT vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC) it has held that provisions for deduction, exemption and relief should be interpreted liberally, reasonab…

M/S Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

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

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari v. Exemption Ward, Allahabad Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., U.P. 211001 Khadia, Yogichaura, Shaktinagar, Sonbhadra-231222 PAN-AAATU1540K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 15.03.2022 Date of pronouncement: 16.03.2022 O R D E R VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.10.2021 of CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi fo…

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ment of the assessee or the rate of tax? The reference to the Constitution Bench was necessitated essentially for the reason that in a few decisions, one of them by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Sun Export Corpn. v. Collector of Customs: [1997] 6 SCC 564, the proposition came to be stated that any ambiguity in a tax provision/notification must be interpreted in favour of the assessee who is claiming benefit thereunder.14 17.1. In Dilip Kumar & Co., the Constitution Bench of this Court examined several of the past decisions including that by another Constitution Bench in CCE v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal…

M/S Subex Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-III

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA/378/2015HC Karnataka01 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143Section 154Section 200Section 260Section 263Section 35D

…erpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the Revenue. - 33 - 66.3. The ratio in Sun Export case [Sun Export Corpn. v. Collector of Customs, (1997) 6 SCC 564] is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export case stand overruled.” 24. This being the case, it is obvious that the beneficial purpose of the exemption contained in Section 3(1)(b) must be given full effect to, the line of authority being applicable to the facts of these cases being the line of authority…

Shri Guru Ram Dass Educational Society, Mohali vs. Pr.CIT(Central) Gurgaon, at Chandigarh

ITA 98/CHANDI/2021[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

…dgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of : • Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company & Others which overruled the 3 Judges Bench decision in the case of • Sun Export Corporation Mumba Vs. Collector of Customs, Mumbai (1997) 6 SCC 564 5.10 The Ld. Pr. CIT was also of the view that violation of the conditions of Sections 11,12 & 13 can also trigger cancellation of registration as per the provisions of Section 12AA(4) of the Act which have been introduced with effect from 01/10/2014 and that the denial of exemption under section 11 & 12 can be triggered for two reasons; (i) due t…

Chandigarh Educational Society, Mohali vs. Pr.CIT(Central)-Gurgaon, at Chandigarh

ITA 97/CHANDI/2021[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

…dgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of : • Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company & Others which overruled the 3 Judges Bench decision in the case of • Sun Export Corporation Mumba Vs. Collector of Customs, Mumbai (1997) 6 SCC 564 5.10 The Ld. Pr. CIT was also of the view that violation of the conditions of Sections 11,12 & 13 can also trigger cancellation of registration as per the provisions of Section 12AA(4) of the Act which have been introduced with effect from 01/10/2014 and that the denial of exemption under section 11 & 12 can be triggered for two reasons; (i) due t…

Chandigarh Educational Trust, Mohali vs. Pr.CIT-Central, Gurgaon, at Chandigarh

ITA 96/CHANDI/2021[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

…dgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of : • Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company & Others which overruled the 3 Judges Bench decision in the case of • Sun Export Corporation Mumba Vs. Collector of Customs, Mumbai (1997) 6 SCC 564 5.10 The Ld. Pr. CIT was also of the view that violation of the conditions of Sections 11,12 & 13 can also trigger cancellation of registration as per the provisions of Section 12AA(4) of the Act which have been introduced with effect from 01/10/2014 and that the denial of exemption under section 11 & 12 can be triggered for two reasons; (i) due t…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ALLD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT), BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 147 & 148/ALLD/2016 Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2007-08 JCIT (OSD), Circle-2 Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, 38, M.G. v. Naini, Allahabad, U.P. Marg, Allahabad,U.P. PAN: AAACB9309A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR) Assessee by: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.A. Date of hearing: 14.07.2021 Date of pronouncement: 12.08.2021 O R D E R PER Bench: These two appeals, filed by Revenue, bearing I…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/ALLD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT), BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 147 & 148/ALLD/2016 Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2007-08 JCIT (OSD), Circle-2 Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, 38, M.G. v. Naini, Allahabad, U.P. Marg, Allahabad,U.P. PAN: AAACB9309A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR) Assessee by: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.A. Date of hearing: 14.07.2021 Date of pronouncement: 12.08.2021 O R D E R PER Bench: These two appeals, filed by Revenue, bearing I…

Smt. Padma Rajagopalan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(5), Bangalore

ITA 629/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

For Respondent: Shri Prashanth G.S, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

…N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015 – 16 Padma Rajagopalan, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.2A, Ward-3(3)(5), Rukmini Apartments, Bengaluru. No.1, Annamaya Block, Vs. Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru-560 020. PAN – ALUPP 2532 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Prashanth G.S, C.A Appellant by Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 17-09-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 20-09-2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee agains…

Srinivasa Fashins Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-6(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1396/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.09.2020
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु#वु$ आर.एल. रे&डी, "या)यक सद"य के सम* BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU R.L.REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER )नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING v. M/s.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [PAN: AAICS 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, CA : Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT /…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ment of the assessee or the rate of tax? The reference to the Constitution Bench was necessitated essentially for the reason that in a few decisions, one of them by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Sun Export Corpn. v. Collector of Customs: [1997] 6 SCC 564, the proposition came to be stated that any ambiguity in a tax provision/notification must be interpreted in favour of the assessee who is claiming benefit thereunder.14 17.1. In Dilip Kumar & Co., the Constitution Bench of this Court examined several of the past decisions including that by another Constitution Bench in CCE v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal…

Ramnath and Co vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-002506-002509 - 2020Supreme Court05 Jun 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 80

…ent of the assessee or the rate of tax? The reference to the Constitution Bench was necessitated essentially for the reason that in a few decisions, one of them by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Sun Export Corpn. v. Collector of Customs: (1997) 6 SCC 564, the proposition came to be stated that any ambiguity in a tax provision/notification must be interpreted in favour of the assessee who is claiming benefit thereunder.14 14 In Sun Export Corpn. v. Collector of Customs, (1997) 6 SCC 564 the Court had stated the law as follows (at page 568) : “Even assuming that there are two views possible, it is…

Sri Sudheer Valsala Sreekumaran, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 393/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54ESection 54FSection 54F(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2013-14 Sri Sudheer Valsala Sreekumaran, Vs. The Income-tax Officer, # Flat – B, 101, ‘Sharada Nivas’, Ward-5(3)(2), Sterlign Apartments, 6th Main, Bengaluru. 15th Cross, Indiranagar, Near ESI Hospital. Bengaluru-560 038. PAN – CFTPS 5268 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 11.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : .12.2019 O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant…

Commnr. of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. M/S. Dilip Kumar and Company

C.A. No.-003327-003327 - 2007Supreme Court30 Jul 2018

Bench: A Bench Of Two­Judges. The Matter Then Went Before A Three­Judge Bench Consisting One Of Us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.). The Three­ Judge Bench Having Noticed The Unsatisfactory State Of Law As It Stands Today, Opined That The Dicta In Sun Export Case (Supra), Requires Reconsideration & That Is How The Matter Has Been Placed Before This Constitution Bench. 2

…IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3327 OF 2007 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T N . V . R A M A N A , J . 1. This Constitution Bench is setup to examine the correctness of the ratio in Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (1997) 6 SCC 564 [hereinafter referred as ‘Sun Export Case’ for brevity], namely the question is ­ What is the interpretative rule to be applied while interpreting…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Kumar Raja Associates

In the result, all the Tax Revision

ITTA/191/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: Floor, Opp.Gurudware Bus Stop, Th Stat, 0/O.Meghana Towers, 4 Visakhapatnam. ... Petitioner & M/S.Pulp-N-Pack [P] Limited, Tadimalla ... Respondent : Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, Gp For Commercial Tax Counsel For The Respondent : Sri S Suribabu, Representing On Behalf Of Sri S R R Viswanath Counsel For The Petitioner

For Respondent: Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, GP for Commercial Tax
Section 22

…n Sun Export case is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export case stand overruled. 16,4. Obviously, the generalised, rather sweeping, proposition stated in Sun Export Corpn. [Sun Export Corpn. v. Collector of Customs, (1997) 6 SCC 564] as also in other cases that in the matters of taxation, when two views are possible, the one favourable to the assessee has to be preferred, stands specifically disapproved by the Constitution Bench in Dilip Kumar & Co. [Commr. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co., (2018) 9 SCC 1] It has been laid down by the Constitution Bench in no uncertain terms th…