266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT

121 ITR 535Supreme Court of India1980#3152 most cited

What is 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT authority for?

A casus omissus (an omission that should have been included) should not be readily inferred when interpreting a provision of the Income Tax Act.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Prakash Nath Khanna v CIT · 266 ITR 1 SC · casus omissus · interpretation of statute · Income Tax Act

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 153ASection 153DSection 143(3)Section 147Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 243section 245hacasus omissussection 245csettlement applicationcompensatory interestsection 245d(4)section 245dsection 153(4)section 135asection 144ba

Judgments citing 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Lucknow vs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda U.P

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 460/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2, Lucknow

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 351/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2, Lucknow

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 349/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad vs. Jyoti Mediservices Ltd., Allahabad

ITA 129/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Jyoti Mediservices Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

ITA 115/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Jyoti Mediservices Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

ITA 114/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Jyoti Mediservices Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

ITA 113/ALLD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Jeevan Jyoti Infrastructure Company Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 56/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Minto Colonizers Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 54/ALLD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad vs. Navjeevan Pediatrics Private Limited, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 44/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Allahabad vs. Jeevan Jyoti Charitable Trust, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 41/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad vs. Jeevan Jyoti Charitable Trust, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 40/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Central Circle), Allahabad vs. Jeevan Jyoti Charitable Trust, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 39/ALLD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Arpit Hospital Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 14/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Arpit Hospital Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 13/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 40/ALLD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 39/ALLD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 38/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 37/ALLD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 36/ALLD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…) CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears for the proposition that a provision of the Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from it. Learned Departmental Representatives placed further reliance on 266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT and 121 ITR 535 (SC) CIT vs. National Taj Traders for the proposition that casus omissus should not be readily inferred. Learned Departmental Representatives also relied on the case laws in [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal vs. CIT and [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) India United Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax for the proposition that rule of constru…

266 ITR 1 (SC) Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT (121 ITR 535) — Cited in 37 Judgments | BharatTax