How many judgments cite 148 STC 225 (SC) (II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CIT?

25 judgments on BharatTax cite 148 STC 225 (SC) (II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CIT (7 SCC 592), spanning 2008 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 148 STC 225 (SC) (II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 144C(3), Section 201(1A), Section 234C.

148 STC 225 (SC) (II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CIT

7 SCC 592Reported decision2006#4784 most cited

What is 148 STC 225 (SC) (II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The case establishes that benefits flowing out of statutory provisions cannot be denied to an assessee company. It also suggests that if the legislature intends to exclude certain deductions (like under Section 80IB(10)) from Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) calculations, a specific provision would be present in Section 115JB, similar to provisions found in Section 115JC.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CIT · 115JB · 115JC · MAT · Minimum Alternate Tax · Section 80IB(10) · deduction for MAT · statutory provisions

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 144C(3)Section 201(1A)Section 234C Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 144b(1)section 92f(ii)profit split method section 54e section 115jc section 80ia(8)section 92ba section 54ec minimum alternate tax cost plus method section 80ib(10)functional analysis

Judgments citing 148 STC 225 (SC) (II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CIT

M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE

SLP(C) No.-006092 - 2025Supreme Court14 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 6Section 6(2)(a)Section 6(2)(b)Section 67(2)Section 70Section 73

…at unless the foundation of the case is made out in the show-cause notice, Revenue cannot in Court argue a case not made out in its show-cause notice. See: Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Toyo Engineering India Limited MANU/SC/3625/2006 : (2006) 7 SCC 592, para 16. 51. Similar view was expressed by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. MANU/SC/3595/2007 : (2007) 8 SCC 89. In paragraph 27 of the said report, learned Judges made it clear that if there is no invocation of the concerned rules in the show-cause notice, it would not be open…

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

…that cannot be denied to the assessee company. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements. (I) Mrf Ltd v. Asstt. CST [2006] 148 STC 225 (SC) (II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 1 SCC 625 (III) M P Oil Extraction v. State of MP [1997] 7 SCC 592 (d) The receipts which are not taxable cannot bring to tax under any other section.” CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 Taxman 713 (SC). (e) In the newly inserted sec. 115JC the legislature clearly mention that "deduction claimed, if any, under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes";, i.e. If the legislature have inte…

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

ITA 498/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…not be denied to \nthe assessee company. Reliance is placed on the following judicial \npronouncements.\n(I) Mrf Ltd v. Asstt. CST [2006] 148 STC 225 (SC)\n(II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 1 SCC 625 \n(III) M P Oil Extraction v. State of MP [1997] 7 SCC 592\n(d) The receipts which are not taxable cannot bring to tax under any \nother section.” CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 \nTaxman 713 (SC).\n(e) In the newly inserted sec. 115JC the legislature clearly mention that \n"deduction claimed, if any, under the heading "C.-Deductions in \nrespect of certain incomes";, i.e. If the legislature h…

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

ITA 497/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

ITA 490/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…that cannot be denied to the assessee company. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements. (I) Mrf Ltd v. Asstt. CST [2006] 148 STC 225 (SC) (II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 1 SCC 625 (III) M P Oil Extraction v. State of MP [1997] 7 SCC 592 (d)The receipts which are not taxable cannot bring to tax under any other section.” CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 Taxman 713 (SC). (e)In the newly inserted sec. 115JC the legislature clearly mention that…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

ITA 489/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…that cannot be denied to the assessee company. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements. (I) Mrf Ltd v. Asstt. CST [2006] 148 STC 225 (SC) (II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 1 SCC 625 (III) M P Oil Extraction v. State of MP [1997] 7 SCC 592 (d)The receipts which are not taxable cannot bring to tax under any other section.” CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 Taxman 713 (SC). (e)In the newly inserted sec. 115JC the legislature clearly mention that…

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 152/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15. cuke Shree Cement Limited, Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Bangur Nagar, Admin Block, Income-tax, Circle -2, Post box No. 33, Masuda Road, Ajmer. Beawar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AACCS 8796 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 14…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. BRAVO SPONGE IRON (P) LTD.

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered

ITAT/86/2017HC Calcutta07 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Appellant: Mr. Debasis Chowdhury, AdvFor Respondent: None appears

Section 260ASection 263

…cating the matter can travel beyond the 3 allegations set out in the said notice. This issue has been settled in several decisions and it will be beneficial to take note of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Toyo Engg. India Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 592 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the department cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. This decision which was followed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del) was rightly taken note of by the Tribunal and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. Therefore, we…

M/S. DEVI SHAKUNTALA THKARAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 322/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Devi Shakuntala Dcit Thakral Charitable (Exemption) बनाम/ Foundation Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatd2943B

Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…, Bhopal] passed by Ld. CIT(Exemption). It will be against the principle of natural justice that an assessee who has not been confronted with any ground be saddled with the liability thereof. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Toyo Engg. India Limited [2006] 7 SCC 592 had noted that the Department cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. 4. Reliance is placed on following judicial precedents – a. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Contimeters Electricals (P.) Limited – [2009] 178 taxman 422 – order pronounced on 02.12.2008 – Para 10 –“ Te Tribunal considered the rival contentions and referred to the Su…

INTERNATIONAL CARGO TERMINALS & RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BOXTRANS LOGISTRICS (INDIA) SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-1, MUMBAI

ITA 1637/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1637/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…regard, in para 10, the Court has also referred to judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 27 I.T.A. No. 1637/Mum/2018 M/s International Cargo Terminals & Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of Customs vs Toyo Engineering (India) Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 592. Based on the above, the Appellant submits that, in the present case, the findings given by the PCIT and the basis thereof was never put to the Appellant in the revision proceedings. In view thereof, revision order dated 10.01.2018 passed under section 263 of the Act violates the requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing in sub-section(l)…

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI KOUNDINYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

ITTA/179/2019HC Andhra Pradesh29 Oct 2019

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

…& Wales) 45. [2002] EWCA Civ 690, [2002] W.L.R. 2601 at 2607, para. 18, C.A. (England & Wales) 46. (2016) 6 Supreme Court Cases 766 47. 170 C.L.R. 394 48. (1988) 4 SCC 669 49. (1992) 4 SCC 477] 50. (1993) 1. S.C.C. 71 51. (1993) 3 SCC 499] 52. (1997) 7 SCC 592 53. (1998) 7 SCC 66 54. [1956] 1 All ER 256; 62 TLR 557 55. (1877)2 App Case 439 CJ, MSM,J and DVSS,J W.P.Nos.13203 of 2020 & batch 4 56. (1854) 5 HL Cas 185, 10 ER 868 (PC) 57. (1883) LR 9 App Case 605 58. AIR 1968 SC 718 59. (1979) 2 SCC 409 60. (2004) 7 SCC 673 61. (1995) 6 SCC 53 62. (2006) 3 SCC 620 63. (2011) 3 SCC 193 64…

NEHA HOME BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT - 13, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2964/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Neha Home Builders Pvt. Vs. Cit-13, Mumbai Ltd., 801, Hubtown Solaris, N.S.Phadke Marg Off. Teli Galli, Near Andheri Flyover Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 069 Pan/Gir No. Aaccn7092E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 263Section 80Section 80I

…that cannot be denied to the assessee company. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements. I) MRF LTD VS. Asst. CST (2006) 148 STC 225 (SC) II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., vs. CIT (2005) 1 SCC 625 III) M P Oil Extraction vs. State of MP (1997) 7 SCC 592 17. The receipts which are not taxable cannot bring to tax under any other section.”CIT vs. D.P.Sandhu Brothers 273 ITR 1 (SC) 18. In the newly inserted sec. 115JC the legislature clearly mention that "deduction claimed, if any, under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes";, i.e. If the legislature have intention :; not give bene…

M/S. ST-ERICSSON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1672/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri S.D. Kapila, R.R. Maurya &For Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Senior DR

Section 143Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1672/Del./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) St-Ericsson India Private Limited, vs. Addl.CIT, Range 9, D – 28, South Extension, Part – I, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. (PAN : AAMCS1022K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/Shri S.D. Kapila, R.R. Maurya & Sanjay Kumar, Advocates and Shri Pankaj Rohta, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Neeraj Kumar, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 07.02.2017 Date of Order : 22.02.2017 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The Appe…

MYTAS INVESTMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 23, MUMBAI

ITA 3025/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri D.V. LakhaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…Electricals (P) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Delhi) , wherein the Hon’ble High Court held : “10. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of : Commissioner of Customs v. Toyo Engg. India Ltd. [2006] 7 SCC 592 wherein the Supreme Court noted that the department cannot travel beyond the show-cause notice. The Tribunal was of the view that the ground that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions laid down under section 80-IA did not form part of the show- cause notice. The Tribunal accepted the argument of the assessee that the Commissioner of Income-…

M/S. SHANTI SARUP & SONS PVT. LTD.,MEERUT vs. CIT, MEERUT

ITA 2374/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Munish Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…aimed and allowed without enquiring into the correctness of the same” and proceeded to decide the same on the basis of findings returned in the tax audit report. In the judgments cited as Commissioner of Customs vs. 10. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. – (2006) 7 SCC 592 and Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ashish Rajpal – (2010) 320 7 ITA No.2374/Del./2013 ITR 674 (Del.). Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court have thrashed the identical issue. Ratio of the judgments i.e. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. and Ashish Rajpal (supra) is that Commissioner while exercising a revisional power u/s 263 is not empowered to travel…

M/S NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1023/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80H

…the case of Contimeter Electrical Pvt. Ltd. reported in 317 ITR 249(Del) has held as under: “10. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Toyo Engg. India Ltd. [2006] 7 SCC 592 wherein the Supreme Court noted that the department cannot travel beyond the show-cause notice. The Tribunal was of the view that the ground that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions laid down under section 80-IA did not form part of the show-cause notice. The Tribunal accepted the argument of the assessee that the Commissioner of Income-t…

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5126/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80H

M/S SANKHLA POLYMERS (P) LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2)

In the result, the appeal relating to the assessment

ITA/1100/2006HC Karnataka29 Jan 2013

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 115JSection 148Section 260ASection 80

…ng some overriding public interest. (See Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation AIR 1994 SC 988). is relied upon. 17. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of M P OIL EXTRACTION vs STATE OF MP [(1997) 7 SCC 592], wherein it has been held as under: It has been rightly contended by Dr Singhvi that the respondents legitimately expect that the renewal clause should be given effect to in usual manner and according to past practice unless there is any special reason not to adhere to such practice. The doctrine of ‘legitimate expectation’ has been judi…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2