48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal v. CIT

27 ITR 20Supreme Court of India1955#1471 most cited

What is 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal v. CIT authority for?

The strict rule of construction applies only to taxing provisions that create a charge for tax liability. It does not apply to machinery provisions that facilitate the assessment, collection, and recovery of tax.

77

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gursahai Saigal v. CIT · 48 ITR 1 SC · statutory interpretation · rule of construction · charging provisions · machinery provisions · tax assessment · tax liability · casus omissus · Section 143(3) · Section 153A · Section 274(2)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234ASection 234CSection 115BBESection 133ASection 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 243section 245hacasus omissussection 245csettlement applicationsection 245d(4)section 153(4)section 144basection 245dsection 244section 144a

Judgments citing 48 ITR 1 (SC) Gursahai Saigal v. CIT

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Metaliks Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1143/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 115JSection 43B

…sections which impose the charge or levy, should be strictly construed and this position though was reiterated by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442; and subsequently by the Supreme Court in (PC) India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT[1955] 27 ITR 20 in the case of India United Mills and thereafter the various other judgments, still prevails as the correct law. The entire mechanism for the computation of book profit is clearly set out in sub- section (1) of section 115JB read with Explanation thereto. The starting point being the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account prepared in ac…

M/S. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Unit Bhilai Steel Plant) Ispat Bhawan . Through Its Sr. Manager (F and A) vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Raipur

C.A. No.-002150-002150 - 2012Supreme Court08 May 2019

Bench: Us. 2. Very Briefly Put, The Question Which We Are Called Upon To Consider & Resolve Is As To Whether Interest Is Payable On The Differential Excise Duty With Retrospective Effect That Become Payable On The Basis Of Escalation Clause Under Section 11Ab Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 3. In This Batch Of Appeals, We Will Treat C.A. No.2150/2012 As The Leading Case. We Will Refer To The Said Case As The Sail Case. In The Said Case Originally, The Appellant Company Which Is Manufacturer Of Various Products Including Rail

Section 11Section 11A

…ame. (See Whitney v. IRC [1926 AC 37 : 42 TLR 58] , CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [(1940) 8 ITR 442 : AIR 1940 PC 124 : 67 IA 239], India United Mills 42 Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay [(1955) 1 SCR 810 : AIR 1955 SC 79 : (1955) 27 ITR 20] and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, Punjab [(1963) 3 SCR 893 : AIR 1963 SC 1062 : (1963) 48 ITR 1] ). But it must also be realised that provision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract…

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Metaliks Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1481/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43B

…sections which impose the charge or levy, should be strictly construed and this position though was reiterated by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442; and subsequently by the Supreme Court in (PC) India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT[1955] 27 ITR 20 in the case of India United Mills and thereafter the various other judgments, still prevails as the correct law. The entire mechanism for the computation of book profit is clearly set out in sub-section (1) of section 115JB read with Explanation thereto. The starting point being the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account prepared in acc…

M/S Tata Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 1153/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43B

…sections which impose the charge or levy, should be strictly construed and this position though was reiterated by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442; and subsequently by the Supreme Court in (PC) India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT[1955] 27 ITR 20 in the case of India United Mills and thereafter the various other judgments, still prevails as the correct law. The entire mechanism for the computation of book profit is clearly set out in sub-section (1) of section 115JB read with Explanation thereto. The starting point being the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account prepared in acc…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tata Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 478/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234C

…, Kol. Page 12 impose the charge or levy, should be strictly construed and this position though was reiterated by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442; and subsequently by the Supreme Court in (PC) India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT[1955] 27 ITR 20 in the case of India United Mills and thereafter the various other judgments, still prevails as the correct law. The entire mechanism for the computation of book profit is clearly set out in sub-section (1) of section 115JB read with Explanation thereto. The starting point being the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account prepared in acc…

Tata Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 439/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234C

…, Kol. Page 12 impose the charge or levy, should be strictly construed and this position though was reiterated by the Apex Court in CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442; and subsequently by the Supreme Court in (PC) India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT[1955] 27 ITR 20 in the case of India United Mills and thereafter the various other judgments, still prevails as the correct law. The entire mechanism for the computation of book profit is clearly set out in sub-section (1) of section 115JB read with Explanation thereto. The starting point being the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account prepared in acc…

Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai vs. M/S. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through Its Manager

C.A. No.-002165-002165 - 2012Supreme Court31 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14A

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2165 OF 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER … RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A.No.1429 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 36560 of 2012, C.A. No. 117 of 2015, C.A. No. 5101 of 2012, C.A. No. 118 of 2015, C.A. No. 6727 of 2015, C.A. No. 119 of 2015, C.A. No. 116 of 2015, C.A. No. 194 of 2015, C.A. No. 114 of 2015, C.A. No. 120 of 2015, C.A. No. 7395 of 2012, C.A. No. 7394 of 2012, C.A. No. 121 of 2015,…

DCIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai vs. Omprakash B. Goenka, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2032/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.2027 To 2032/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2005-2006 To 2010-2011) Dcit, Central Circle-14, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Omprakash B. 400020 Goenka, 101, Somerset House, Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.1895 & 1921/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2008-2009 & 2010-2011) Shri Omprakash B. Goenka, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-14, 101, Somerset House, Mumbai-400020 Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Deepkant Prasad ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiro Rai सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2005-06 To 2010-2011, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 33A

…was held that the word "omission" connotes an unintentional act or neglect to perform what the law requires. However, the meaning and scope of word "discovers" have been earlier explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India United Ml1Is Ltd. v . CEPT (1955) 27 ITR 20 in the context of section 15 of the EPT Act 1940 (which is equivalent to section 34 of the IT Act, 1922 and relates to issuance of notice for reassessment) where it held that 'Tt will therefore be correct to say 4 ITA Nos.2027-2032/13 & ITA Nos.1895&1921/13 that when a person comes to know of a fact of which he had no previous knowledge he discove…

DCIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai vs. Omprakash B. Goenka, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2031/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.2027 To 2032/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2005-2006 To 2010-2011) Dcit, Central Circle-14, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Omprakash B. 400020 Goenka, 101, Somerset House, Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.1895 & 1921/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2008-2009 & 2010-2011) Shri Omprakash B. Goenka, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-14, 101, Somerset House, Mumbai-400020 Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Deepkant Prasad ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiro Rai सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2005-06 To 2010-2011, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 33A

…was held that the word "omission" connotes an unintentional act or neglect to perform what the law requires. However, the meaning and scope of word "discovers" have been earlier explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India United Ml1Is Ltd. v . CEPT (1955) 27 ITR 20 in the context of section 15 of the EPT Act 1940 (which is equivalent to section 34 of the IT Act, 1922 and relates to issuance of notice for reassessment) where it held that 'Tt will therefore be correct to say 4 ITA Nos.2027-2032/13 & ITA Nos.1895&1921/13 that when a person comes to know of a fact of which he had no previous knowledge he discove…

DCIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai vs. Omprakash B. Goenka, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2030/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.2027 To 2032/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2005-2006 To 2010-2011) Dcit, Central Circle-14, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Omprakash B. 400020 Goenka, 101, Somerset House, Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.1895 & 1921/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2008-2009 & 2010-2011) Shri Omprakash B. Goenka, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-14, 101, Somerset House, Mumbai-400020 Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Deepkant Prasad ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiro Rai सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2005-06 To 2010-2011, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 33A

…was held that the word "omission" connotes an unintentional act or neglect to perform what the law requires. However, the meaning and scope of word "discovers" have been earlier explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India United Ml1Is Ltd. v . CEPT (1955) 27 ITR 20 in the context of section 15 of the EPT Act 1940 (which is equivalent to section 34 of the IT Act, 1922 and relates to issuance of notice for reassessment) where it held that 'Tt will therefore be correct to say 4 ITA Nos.2027-2032/13 & ITA Nos.1895&1921/13 that when a person comes to know of a fact of which he had no previous knowledge he discove…

DCIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai vs. Omprakash B. Goenka, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2029/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.2027 To 2032/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2005-2006 To 2010-2011) Dcit, Central Circle-14, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Omprakash B. 400020 Goenka, 101, Somerset House, Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.1895 & 1921/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2008-2009 & 2010-2011) Shri Omprakash B. Goenka, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-14, 101, Somerset House, Mumbai-400020 Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Deepkant Prasad ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiro Rai सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2005-06 To 2010-2011, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 33A

…was held that the word "omission" connotes an unintentional act or neglect to perform what the law requires. However, the meaning and scope of word "discovers" have been earlier explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India United Ml1Is Ltd. v . CEPT (1955) 27 ITR 20 in the context of section 15 of the EPT Act 1940 (which is equivalent to section 34 of the IT Act, 1922 and relates to issuance of notice for reassessment) where it held that 'Tt will therefore be correct to say 4 ITA Nos.2027-2032/13 & ITA Nos.1895&1921/13 that when a person comes to know of a fact of which he had no previous knowledge he discove…

DCIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai vs. Omprakash B. Goenka, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2028/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.2027 To 2032/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2005-2006 To 2010-2011) Dcit, Central Circle-14, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Omprakash B. 400020 Goenka, 101, Somerset House, Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.1895 & 1921/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2008-2009 & 2010-2011) Shri Omprakash B. Goenka, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-14, 101, Somerset House, Mumbai-400020 Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Deepkant Prasad ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiro Rai सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2005-06 To 2010-2011, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 33A

…was held that the word "omission" connotes an unintentional act or neglect to perform what the law requires. However, the meaning and scope of word "discovers" have been earlier explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India United Ml1Is Ltd. v . CEPT (1955) 27 ITR 20 in the context of section 15 of the EPT Act 1940 (which is equivalent to section 34 of the IT Act, 1922 and relates to issuance of notice for reassessment) where it held that 'Tt will therefore be correct to say 4 ITA Nos.2027-2032/13 & ITA Nos.1895&1921/13 that when a person comes to know of a fact of which he had no previous knowledge he discove…

DCIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai vs. Omprakash B. Goenka, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2027/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.2027 To 2032/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2005-2006 To 2010-2011) Dcit, Central Circle-14, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Omprakash B. 400020 Goenka, 101, Somerset House, Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.1895 & 1921/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2008-2009 & 2010-2011) Shri Omprakash B. Goenka, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-14, 101, Somerset House, Mumbai-400020 Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Deepkant Prasad ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiro Rai सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2005-06 To 2010-2011, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 33A

…was held that the word "omission" connotes an unintentional act or neglect to perform what the law requires. However, the meaning and scope of word "discovers" have been earlier explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India United Ml1Is Ltd. v . CEPT (1955) 27 ITR 20 in the context of section 15 of the EPT Act 1940 (which is equivalent to section 34 of the IT Act, 1922 and relates to issuance of notice for reassessment) where it held that 'Tt will therefore be correct to say 4 ITA Nos.2027-2032/13 & ITA Nos.1895&1921/13 that when a person comes to know of a fact of which he had no previous knowledge he discove…

Omprakash Basantlal Goenka, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1921/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.2027 To 2032/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2005-2006 To 2010-2011) Dcit, Central Circle-14, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Omprakash B. 400020 Goenka, 101, Somerset House, Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.1895 & 1921/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2008-2009 & 2010-2011) Shri Omprakash B. Goenka, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-14, 101, Somerset House, Mumbai-400020 Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Deepkant Prasad ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiro Rai सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2005-06 To 2010-2011, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 33A

…was held that the word "omission" connotes an unintentional act or neglect to perform what the law requires. However, the meaning and scope of word "discovers" have been earlier explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India United Ml1Is Ltd. v . CEPT (1955) 27 ITR 20 in the context of section 15 of the EPT Act 1940 (which is equivalent to section 34 of the IT Act, 1922 and relates to issuance of notice for reassessment) where it held that 'Tt will therefore be correct to say 4 ITA Nos.2027-2032/13 & ITA Nos.1895&1921/13 that when a person comes to know of a fact of which he had no previous knowledge he discove…

Omprakash Basantlal Goenka, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1895/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.2027 To 2032/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2005-2006 To 2010-2011) Dcit, Central Circle-14, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Omprakash B. 400020 Goenka, 101, Somerset House, Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.1895 & 1921/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2008-2009 & 2010-2011) Shri Omprakash B. Goenka, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-14, 101, Somerset House, Mumbai-400020 Sophia College Lane, Warden Road, Mumbai- 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aecpg 3854 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Deepkant Prasad ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiro Rai सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2005-06 To 2010-2011, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 33A

…was held that the word "omission" connotes an unintentional act or neglect to perform what the law requires. However, the meaning and scope of word "discovers" have been earlier explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India United Ml1Is Ltd. v . CEPT (1955) 27 ITR 20 in the context of section 15 of the EPT Act 1940 (which is equivalent to section 34 of the IT Act, 1922 and relates to issuance of notice for reassessment) where it held that 'Tt will therefore be correct to say 4 ITA Nos.2027-2032/13 & ITA Nos.1895&1921/13 that when a person comes to know of a fact of which he had no previous knowledge he discove…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana

C.A. No.-003958-003958 - 2014Supreme Court12 Mar 2014
Section 132Section 158B

…tuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (Whitney v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue 1926 A C 37, CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas (1940) 8 ITR 442 , Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Ex- cess Profits Tax, Bombay, [1955] 27 ITR 20(SC) and Gursa- hai Saigal v. CIT, Punjab, [1963] 1 ITR 48(SC).” 37.It is the duty of the court while interpreting the machinery provisions of a taxing statute to give effect to its manifest purpose. Wherever the intention to impose liability is clear, the Courts ought not be hesitant in espousing a commonsense interpretation to the mac…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana

C.A. No.-003958-003958 - 2014Supreme Court12 Mar 2014
Section 132Section 158B

…tuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (Whitney v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue 1926 A C 37, CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas (1940) 8 ITR 442 , Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Ex- cess Profits Tax, Bombay, [1955] 27 ITR 20(SC) and Gursa- hai Saigal v. CIT, Punjab, [1963] 1 ITR 48(SC).” 37.It is the duty of the court while interpreting the machinery provisions of a taxing statute to give effect to its manifest purpose. Wherever the intention to impose liability is clear, the Courts ought not be hesitant in espousing a commonsense interpretation to the mac…