Act, (Ispat Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Customer

12 SCC 583Reported decision2006#22288 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2024.

Judgments citing Act, (Ispat Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Customer

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-1 vs. OJJUS MEDICARE PVT. LTD.

ITA/52/2024HC Delhi03 Apr 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

…n Gursahai Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified ITA 52/2024 & connected matters Page 98 of 179 Saigal v. CIT [(1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC)] and Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs [(2006) 12 SCC 583 : (2006) 202 ELT 561] . ‘17. In Gursahai Saigal [(1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC)] the question which fell for consideration before this Court was construction of the machinery provisions vis-à-vis the charging provisions. The Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act is not machinery provision. It is a part of the charging provision. 18. By giving…

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

C.A. No.-000911-000911 - 2022Supreme Court06 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

…[(2006) 12 SCC 607] this Court noticed the decisions of this CIVIL APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2022 Page 58 of 67 Court in Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [(1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC)] and Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs [(2006) 12 SCC 583]. ‘17. In Gursahai Saigal [(1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC)] the question which fell for consideration before this Court was construction of the machinery provisions vis-à-vis the charging provisions. The Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act is not machinery provision. It is a part of the charging provision. 18. By giving a p…

M/S. T vs. AUTO ASSIST (INDIA) LTD.,,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 3 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 1734/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. ARV. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 199

…iously with all the clauses of Section 199 and the other provisions of the Act. It is settled law that Rules, made under the Act, should be interpreted in conformity with the provisions of the Act, (Ispat Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customer [2006] 12 SCC 583), and not the other way around. A rules should be read as supplemental to the provisions of the parent Act. It cannot be interpreted in a manner as to come into conflict with the parent Act, in which case the Act will prevail. (STO, Moradabad Vs. H. Farid Ahmed and Sons [1976] 1 SCC 245). A piece of :: 12 :: I.T.A. No.1734/Chny/2019 subordinate le…