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

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 35/ALLD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

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 34/ALLD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

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 Developers Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 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 337/ALLD/2018[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…

Ashutosh Kumar Prabhat, Arrah vs. PCIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 564/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 154Section 263

…he service of notice under Section 263 is not in accordance with the law, it cannot be said that the assessee has been given a proper opportunity to put forward their case, thereby rendering the order invalid. 11. That in *CIT v. National Taj Traders* [(1979) 121 ITR 535 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the principles of natural justice must be adhered to in proceedings under Section 263, and failure to do so would render the order unsustainable. 12. That in *CIT v. Prem Syndicate* [(1983) 141 ITR 290 (MP)], the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when proper opportunity is not given to the…

M/S Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust, Kochi vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…s charged up to December, 2010! That apart, even assuming no specific time limit in s. 153B for such a contingency, that may not by itself imply that the ensuing assessment is barred by time. Reference in this context be made to CIT v. National Traders [1980] 121 ITR 535 (SC). The impugned assessments are thus valid in law, and the only issue that therefore survives is the period of interest u/ss. 234A/B. 14 ITA Nos.916 to 919/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2005-06 & 2007-08 to 2009-10) Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust v. Asst. CIT In Sum: 4.10 The issue in the instant case pertains to the term…

M/S Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust, Kochi vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…s charged up to December, 2010! That apart, even assuming no specific time limit in s. 153B for such a contingency, that may not by itself imply that the ensuing assessment is barred by time. Reference in this context be made to CIT v. National Traders [1980] 121 ITR 535 (SC). The impugned assessments are thus valid in law, and the only issue that therefore survives is the period of interest u/ss. 234A/B. 14 ITA Nos.916 to 919/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2005-06 & 2007-08 to 2009-10) Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust v. Asst. CIT In Sum: 4.10 The issue in the instant case pertains to the term…

M/S Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust, Kochi vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 917/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…s charged up to December, 2010! That apart, even assuming no specific time limit in s. 153B for such a contingency, that may not by itself imply that the ensuing assessment is barred by time. Reference in this context be made to CIT v. National Traders [1980] 121 ITR 535 (SC). The impugned assessments are thus valid in law, and the only issue that therefore survives is the period of interest u/ss. 234A/B. 14 ITA Nos.916 to 919/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2005-06 & 2007-08 to 2009-10) Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust v. Asst. CIT In Sum: 4.10 The issue in the instant case pertains to the term…

M/S Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust, Ernakulam vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 916/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…s charged up to December, 2010! That apart, even assuming no specific time limit in s. 153B for such a contingency, that may not by itself imply that the ensuing assessment is barred by time. Reference in this context be made to CIT v. National Traders [1980] 121 ITR 535 (SC). The impugned assessments are thus valid in law, and the only issue that therefore survives is the period of interest u/ss. 234A/B. 14 ITA Nos.916 to 919/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2005-06 & 2007-08 to 2009-10) Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust v. Asst. CIT In Sum: 4.10 The issue in the instant case pertains to the term…

Fastner Commodeal Private Limited, Siliguri vs. ADIT (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1010/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

…70 (Guj). iv. CIT vs Web Commerce India (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 135 (Delhi) v. CIT vs Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR 319 vi. CIT vs Sakal Relief Fund (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 396 (Bom) vii. CIT vs National Taj Traders (1980) 121 ITR 535 (SC) viii. Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1991) 188 ITR 403 (SC).” 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submits that assessee has not fulfilled the requisite condition for availing the benefit of section 115BAA of the Act. The assessee has not uploaded Form 10IC before or at the time of filing of return of income within the time pe…

DCIT, Circle, Yamunanagar vs. M/S Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Yamunanagar

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 326/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I

…hat a fiscal statute should be construed strictly is applicable only to taxing provisions such as a charging provision or a provision imposing penalty and not to those parts of the statute which contain machinery provisions- CIT v. National Taj Traders [1980] 121 ITR 535 (SC). In our opinion, the conditions embodied in sub-section (1), the fulfilment of which entitles the assessee to claim deductions are mandatory because the substratum of the claim of deductions is the deposit of the amount in the account maintained by the assessee with the Development Bank or utilisation thereof for the purchase of new ship, ne…

Kgy Glass Industries (P) Ltd, Surat vs. Asstt. Director of Income of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 316/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Kgy Glass Industries (P) Ltd., Asstt. Director Of Income Plot No. 827, Gidc, Sachin, Tax, Cpc, Vs. Surat-394230. Bengaluru. Pan: Aaeck 0946 J Appellant Respondednt

Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 254(1)

…(2009) 318 ITR 135 (Delhi) 4 KGY Glass Industries (P) Ltd Vs Asst.DIT (v) CIT Vs Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR 319. (vi) CIT Vs Sakal Relief Fund (2017) 81 taxmann.com 396 (Bom) (vii) CIT Vs National Taj Traders (1980) 121 ITR 535 (SC) (viii) Goodyear India Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. (1991) 188 ITR 403 (SC) 6. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the assessee has not fulfilled the requisite condition for availing the benefit of Section 115BAA of the Act. The assessee has not uploaded Form 10-IC before or at the time of filing of return of inc…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. M/S Hi-Tech Sweet Water Technologies(P) Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 230/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.230/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Hi-Tech Sweet Water Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Technologies (P.) Ltd., 5Th Room No.505, Floor, Vs. 4, Gopal Nagar, Nandeda Char Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Rasta, Gidc, Bardoli–394601 Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach7432C िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 80I

…he specific words of a statute is a different proposition. That a person cannot be taxed on the principle of estoppel does not admit of much argument." Then he relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. National Taj Traders [1980] 121 ITR 535, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under (headnote): "The principle that a fiscal statute should be construed strictly is applicable only to taxing provisions such as a charging provision or a provision imposing penalty and not to those parts of the statute which contain machinery provisions." In the case of Goodyear India Ltd. v. State o…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-13, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 3830/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
Section 263Section 40Section 9

…a Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prem Syndicate, 141 ITR 290 (MP). In this decision, the Hon'ble High Court has duly taken note of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Electro House, 82 ITR 824 (SC) and CIT vs National Taj Traders, 121 ITR 535 (SC). We may gainfully refer to paragraph 3 and 4 of the said order as under :- “3. We have already held relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824, that the question of giving an adequate opportunity to the Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 6 of 8 assessee has no impact on the question of jurisdiction of t…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija
Section 263

…a Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prem Syndicate, 141 ITR 290 (MP). In this decision, the Hon'ble High Court has duly taken note of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Electro House, 82 ITR 824 (SC) and CIT vs National Taj Traders, 121 ITR 535 (SC). We may gainfully refer to paragraph 3 and 4 of the said order as under :- “3. We have already held relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824, that the question of giving an 13 Play Games 24x7 Private Limited adequate opportunity to the assessee has no impact on the question of jurisdiction of th…

ACIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6496/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)For Respondent: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…tute being the edict of the Legislature, representing it’s intent, even as reiterated recently once again by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Humayun Suleman Merchant vs. CCIT [2016] 242 Taxman 189 (Bom) (also refer: CIT v. National Taj Traders [1980] 121 ITR 535 (SC); Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 589 (SC); CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC)). The law is in fact unambiguous and patent, so that it is the golden rule of interpretation, i.e., of literal interpretation, giving the words their natural, ordinary meaning, as also advocated in the afore-referred decisi…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Thompson Assoaicates P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1206/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Assistant Commissioner Of Hindustan Thompson Income-Tax, Circle 16(1) Associates Private Room No. 439, 4 Th Floor, Limited V. Aayakar Bhawan 4Th Floor, M.K.Marg , Churchgate Peninsula Chambers, Mumbai-400 020 Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaach1463M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. B. Srinivas (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Smt. Aarti Vissanji &, Shri. Ajit C. Shah & Ms. Aastha Shah सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1206/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 12.12.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018

For Appellant: Smt. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Shri. B. Srinivas (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 40a

…and nothing more. To the above effect, one will find several authorities and suffice it will be to rely on the Supreme Court decisions in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana [1991] 188 ITR 402 (SC) and also CIT vs. National Taj Traders [1980]121 ITR 535 (SC). 6.5. Section 40 has certain clauses providing for the amounts which are not deductible. Sub-clause (ia) of clause (a) of section 40 was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 with effect from 1st April, 2005 reading as under;- "40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted i…

Govindarajan Ramasamy, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2551/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2551/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…. Dy.CIT [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC) is yet to be interpreted on its terms. In fact, :-7-: I.T.A. No. 2551/Mds/2016 the settled law is that taxing statues are to be strictly construed, on which case law is legion (inter alia, CIT v. National Taj Traders [1980] 121 ITR 535 (SC)). It is even otherwise trite law that a beneficial provision is to strictly interpreted (viz. Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 589 (SC); Novapan India Ltd. v. CCE, 73 ELT 769 (SC)), create as it does a departure from the norm, carving out a classification, so that its terms are to be strictly construed and adhered t…