What is Ajmera Housing Corpn v. CIT authority for?

The scope of proceedings before the Income-tax Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A is sui generis, primarily for disclosure and akin to arbitration, and not an appellate forum to examine complex legal disputes.

How many judgments cite Ajmera Housing Corpn v. CIT?

47 judgments on BharatTax cite Ajmera Housing Corpn v. CIT (326 ITR 642), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Ajmera Housing Corpn v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 271(1)(c), Section 80-IA, Section 143(1)(a)(iv), Section 2(24)(x).

Ajmera Housing Corpn v. CIT (326 ITR 642)

UMAR DARAJ,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-1(2)(4), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3095/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Umar Daraj, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(4), 153/1, Hapur Road, Meerut. Umar Nagar, Meerut – 250 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ainpd8766H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 40A

…. 6. That the principle of consistency is a well-recognized doctrine in tax law, distinct from res judicata, which restrains the Revenue from adopting divergent positions in facts which are identical. The Supreme Court in C.K. Gangadharan & Anr. v. CIT (2008) 8 SCC 739 held (paras 21–23) that once Revenue has accepted a particular treatment, it cannot, in a subsequent year, selectively appeal or deviate without proper reasons or fresh material. 8 Similarly, in Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99, the Supreme Court upheld that the Revenue cannot later take a conflicting stand from what it had earlie…

NUTAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1023/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: \nShri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263Section 28Section 36(1)(viia)

…237 ITR 589), the Court held that the language\nemployed by the Legislature must be given its plain meaning and that\ncourts cannot read something into the provision which is not there. The\nsame principle was reiterated in Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT\n(326 ITR 642), in which the Supreme Court held that in tax statutes\nparticularly, there is no room for intendment when the provision contains\nclear and unambiguous language. Further, the decision of the Constitution\nBench in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) reinforces the\nprinciple that where the statute contains mandatory language, neither the\ntax…

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 231/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 80

…d. CIT(A) for the subsequent years. Further, the order of the Settlement Commission is only for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. 18. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation vs. CIT reported in (2010) 326 ITR 642 (SC) he submitted that the scope of proceedings before the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is sui generis in nature. These proceedings are disclosure made by the assessee. It is similar to arbitration proceedings. The Settlement Commission is not an appellate forum to examine the merits of long standing legal…

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 80

…d. CIT(A) for the subsequent years. Further, the order of the Settlement Commission is only for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. 18. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation vs. CIT reported in (2010) 326 ITR 642 (SC) he submitted that the scope of proceedings before the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is sui generis in nature. These proceedings are disclosure made by the assessee. It is similar to arbitration proceedings. The Settlement Commission is not an appellate forum to examine the merits of long standing legal…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 80

…d. CIT(A) for the subsequent years. Further, the order of the Settlement Commission is only for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. 18. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation vs. CIT reported in (2010) 326 ITR 642 (SC) he submitted that the scope of proceedings before the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is sui generis in nature. These proceedings are disclosure made by the assessee. It is similar to arbitration proceedings. The Settlement Commission is not an appellate forum to examine the merits of long standing legal…

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,KHARGONE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed”

ITA 180/IND/2024[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Indore01 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2022-23 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cpc / Nfac Bank Maryadit, बनाम/ 33,Khandwa Road, Vs. Khargone (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0529K Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01.07.2024

Section 14BSection 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jila Sahakari Kendriya CPC / NFAC Bank Maryadit, बनाम/ 33,Khandwa Road, Vs. Khargone (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAATJ0529K Assessee by Shri Subhash Jain, AR Revenue by Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, CIT DR Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 01.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 08.02.2024 passed by learne…

GLOBAL SECURITY SERVICES ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 150/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…and case laws and relied on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). He also relied on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation [2010] 193 Taxman 193 (SC) / [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC) regarding principle of interpretation of tax statute in which it has been held as under:- “ 27. It is trite law that a taxing statute is to be construed strictly. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. There is…

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE -1 (1), KOCHI vs. M/S GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 968/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini Thampi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…d, thus, a poor business strategy, is something the law, which has to be given effect to, we are afraid, cannot take cognizance of. Tax statutes are to be strictly construed (Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100 (SC); Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC)), while in the instant case, the provision of law stands dilated upon and explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Our order merely follows it’s decisions in Southern Technologies Ltd. (supra) and Vijaya Bank (supra), explaining it in the light of the entries passed by the assessee, and thus seeks to give effect thereto. The assessees, we are so…

ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 967/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini Thampi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…d, thus, a poor business strategy, is something the law, which has to be given effect to, we are afraid, cannot take cognizance of. Tax statutes are to be strictly construed (Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100 (SC); Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC)), while in the instant case, the provision of law stands dilated upon and explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Our order merely follows it’s decisions in Southern Technologies Ltd. (supra) and Vijaya Bank (supra), explaining it in the light of the entries passed by the assessee, and thus seeks to give effect thereto. The assessees, we are so…

CARMEL CONVENT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ax statutes, are to be strictly construed: CC v. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 6 GSTR-OL 46 (SC); Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100 (SC); Ramnath & Co. v. CIT [2020] 425 ITR 337 (SC), affirming [2016] 388 ITR 307 (Ker); Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC). 3 Carmel Convent v. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) 3.3 The assessee’s case before us, as before the Revenue authorities, who found it as wholly unsubstantiated, was that there is nothing to infer that the contributions, received once a year, are not voluntary and, further, there is nothing in law to indicate that the direction accompanying…

M/S. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) , MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross-objection filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 755/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G Manoj Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.755 - 757/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2014-15 M/s. New Mangalore The JCIT, Range-1 / Port Authority, ACIT, Circle – 1(1), FA and CAO, Panambur Mangaluru. Mangalore-575 010. PAN – AAALN 0057 A Vs. APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. Nos. 6 to 8/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2014-15 (By Revenue) Revenue by : Shri G Manoj Kumar, CIT (DR) Assessee by : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Date of Hearing : 05-12-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 19 -12-2023 ORDER…

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 34/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, D.R

Section 143Section 250

…ITA No.34/Bang/2023 M/s. Expat Engineering India Limited, Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Expat Engineering India Ltd. Regd. Office Carlton Towers, A Wing, 3rd Floor, Unit No.301-3-314 ACIT No.1 Old Airport Road Vs. Circle-2(1)(2) Bangalore 560 008 Bangalore PAN NO : AABCE9003D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ravi Shankar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Parithivel, D.R. Date of Hearing : 31.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.11.2023 O R D E R PER CHAN…

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 241/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(7)

…However, the matter before us involves the principle of construction to be placed on the provisions of Finance Act, 2003". 46. A discussion on the Principles of interpretation of tax statutes is warranted. In Ajmera Housing Corpn. v. CIT [2010] 193 Taxman 193/326 ITR 642 (SC)/[2010] 8 SCC 739 this court held as follows: "27. It is trite law that a taxing statute is to be construed strictly. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity…

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-009720-009720 - 2014Supreme Court25 Sept 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 10(15)Section 148Section 245CSection 245C(1)Section 271Section 32Section 80M

…fy for immunity under Section 245H, the assessee must not only co-operate with the Settlement Commission, but must also disclose income which was not reflected in the return of income, vide Ajmera Housing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 8 SCC 739. However, in the present case, the assessee has not disclosed any income which was not reflected in the return of income, but has only brought to the notice of the commission the income that had escaped assessment, which was subsequently discovered by the Assessing Officer. iv. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Commissioner…

M/S KERALA FEEDS LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIR (1)(1) & TPS , THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 942/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Varghese C.V., CA/ARFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 154Section 155Section 2(45)Section 245D

…uble levy and, besides, is consistent with s. 115JAA. In Sum 3.1 Taxing statutes are to be strictly construed (CI(I) v. Dilip & Co., CA No. 3327 of 2007, dated 10/7/2018; Topman Exports v. CIT [2012] 342 ITR 49 (SC); Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT; [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC)). That apart, the provisions allowing tax credit stand explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (supra) strictly in terms of the relevant provisions of s.115JAA. This perhaps explains the conflict of judicial opinion; the decisions by the Hon'ble High Courts, as indeed by the Tribunal, being on either side. Under the circumsta…

KAY SWITCGEARS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 24/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(1)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…truction to be placed on the provisions of Finance Act, 2003". I.T.A. Nos.23, 24&14/Asr/2023 20 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 46. A discussion on the Principles of interpretation of tax statutes is warranted. In Ajmera Housing Corpn. v. CIT [2010] 193 Taxman 193/326 ITR 642 (SC)/[2010] 8 SCC 739 this court held as follows: "27. It is trite law that a taxing statute is to be construed strictly. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity…

ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPAY PRIVATE LIMITED ,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 23/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(1)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…truction to be placed on the provisions of Finance Act, 2003". I.T.A. Nos.23, 24&14/Asr/2023 20 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 46. A discussion on the Principles of interpretation of tax statutes is warranted. In Ajmera Housing Corpn. v. CIT [2010] 193 Taxman 193/326 ITR 642 (SC)/[2010] 8 SCC 739 this court held as follows: "27. It is trite law that a taxing statute is to be construed strictly. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity…

M. K HOTEL & RESORTS LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 14/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(1)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…truction to be placed on the provisions of Finance Act, 2003". I.T.A. Nos.23, 24&14/Asr/2023 20 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 46. A discussion on the Principles of interpretation of tax statutes is warranted. In Ajmera Housing Corpn. v. CIT [2010] 193 Taxman 193/326 ITR 642 (SC)/[2010] 8 SCC 739 this court held as follows: "27. It is trite law that a taxing statute is to be construed strictly. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity…

SHRI SACHIN KAPUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

ITA 261/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…However, the matter before us involves the principle of construction to be placed on the provisions of Finance Act, 2003". 46. A discussion on the Principles of interpretation of tax statutes is warranted. In Ajmera Housing Corpn. v. CIT [2010] 193 Taxman 193/326 ITR 642 (SC)/[2010] 8 SCC 739 this court held as follows: "27. It is trite law that a taxing statute is to be construed strictly. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity…

M/S. RAMCO ENGG WORKS ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

ITA 253/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…However, the matter before us involves the principle of construction to be placed on the provisions of Finance Act, 2003". 46. A discussion on the Principles of interpretation of tax statutes is warranted. In Ajmera Housing Corpn. v. CIT [2010] 193 Taxman 193/326 ITR 642 (SC)/[2010] 8 SCC 739 this court held as follows: "27. It is trite law that a taxing statute is to be construed strictly. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity…

Ajmera Housing Corpn v. CIT

What is Ajmera Housing Corpn v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Ajmera Housing Corpn v. CIT

UMAR DARAJ,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-1(2)(4), MEERUT

NUTAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,KHARGONE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

GLOBAL SECURITY SERVICES ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1) , BANGALORE

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE -1 (1), KOCHI vs. M/S GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

CARMEL CONVENT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

M/S. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) , MANGALURU

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

M/S KERALA FEEDS LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIR (1)(1) & TPS , THRISSUR

KAY SWITCGEARS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPAY PRIVATE LIMITED ,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

M. K HOTEL & RESORTS LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

SHRI SACHIN KAPUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (2), JALANDHAR

M/S. RAMCO ENGG WORKS ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR