1921) 1 KB 64 and Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors.

6 SCC 550Reported decision2000#1025 most cited

What is 1921) 1 KB 64 and Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors. authority for?

The case holds that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly based on their plain language. Courts should not read anything into the statute, imply intendment, or consider equity, hardship, or injustice.

106

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce · strict interpretation of taxing statutes · no equity about tax · literal rule of interpretation · plain language tax statutes · hardship injustice tax law · section 43B · section 36 · section 34 · section 40A(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 43(b)section 3(b)section 34(1)(iv)section 36(va)actual payment basissection 43b(b)section 34(1)section 36(1)(iv)section 40a(2)section 250ofsection 41section 34

Judgments citing 1921) 1 KB 64 and Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors.

M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 45/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 17-A, Co-Operative Industrial Circle 2(1)(1) Estate Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacg5008M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.3.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Director Of The Assessee Company Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Stating Therein That The Papers Required For Filing The Appeal Was Sent Through Speed Post On 27.4.2021 Well Within The Limitation Period, However The Same Was Delivered By The Postal Authorities In The Office Of The Tribunal On 5.5.2021. It Was Further Stated That Since The Nominal Delay Of Five Days Was Due To Late Delivery Of The Dak By The Postal Authorities, The Delay May Be Condoned & The Appeal Be Admitted For Hearing. Having Carefully Perused The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Delay Of 5 Days Is Condoned & Admit This Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s to be implied. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. (See: Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1921) 1 KB 64 and Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 550. In interpreting a taxing statute, the Court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. Considerations of hardship, injustice and equity are entirely out of place in interpreting a taxing statute. (Also see: Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh v. The Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. 1961 (2) SCR 189.)" 47. Likewise, this court und…

Checkmate Services P Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I

C.A. No.-002833-002833 - 2016Supreme Court12 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…o be implied. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. (See: Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1921) 1 KB 64 and Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors.(2000) 6 SCC 550. In interpreting a taxing statute, the Court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. Considerations of hardship, injustice and equity are entirely out of place in interpreting a taxing statute. (Also see: Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh v. The Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. 1961 (2) SCR 189.)” 47. Likewise, this…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Biocon Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 1251/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-1 (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ A ’ BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. No.1251/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU), Bangalore. …. Appellant. Vs. M/s. Biocon Limited, No.20, KM, Hosur Road, Electronic City, Hebbagodi, Bangalore-560 100. ….. Respondent. I.T. A. No.1255/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Revenue By : Shri C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-1 (D.R) Date of Hearing : 20.02.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2018. O R D E R…

Bhavya Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 21(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4389/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…SCC 262; Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v, CIT: JT 1999 (2) SC 527, p. 539 : AIR 1999 SC 1388, p. 1397 : (1999) 4 SCC 197; The Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chamber of Commerce and Industry v, State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2000 SC 2905, p. 2906 : (2000) 6 SCC 550; Commissioner of Central Excise v. Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Lid., AIR 2001 SC 3379, p. 3380 : (2001) 6 SCC 697; Union of India v, Azadi Bachao Andolan, AIR 2004 SC 1107, p. 1137 : 2003 Supp (2) JT 205. Relying upon this passage LORD UPJOHN said: “fiscal measures are not built upon any theory of taxation. (Ref: Commr. of Customs v. Top Ten Promoti…

The State of Karnataka vs. M/S Piem Hotels Ltd

LTRP/8/2010HC Karnataka28 Aug 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 11Section 11ASection 2Section 4Section 5Section 6(2)

…Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. (See: Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC (1921) 1 KB 64 and Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry v. State of A.P. (2000) 6 SCC 550). In interpreting a taxing stature, the court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. Considerations of hardship, injustice and equity and entirely out of place in interpreting a taxing statute. (Also se : CST v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. (1961) (2) SCR 189.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In…

Ajmera Hng.Corp.& Anr.Etc.Etc vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-006827-006848 - 2010Supreme Court20 Aug 2010
Section 132(1)Section 132(5)Section 245C(1)Section 245D(1)Section 245D(4)

…s Ltd.)9. 28. As afore-stated, in the scheme of Chapter XIX-A, there is no stipulation for revision of an application filed under Section 245C(1) of the Act and thus the natural corollary is that determination of 7 (1921) 1 KB 64 8 (2000) 6 SCC 550 9 1961 (2) SCR 189 http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 35 2 income by the Settlement Commission has necessarily to be with reference to the income disclosed in the application filed under the said Section in the prescribed form. 29.…