Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT

196 ITR 188Supreme Court of India1992#272 most cited

What is Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

289

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2004 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bajaj Tempo v. CIT · liberal interpretation · incentive provisions · economic growth · Section 32(1)(iia) · additional depreciation · Section 80IA · Section 80HHC · deduction provisions · tax exemptions · purposive construction

Also reported as

62 Taxmann 4803 SCC 78

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 80IASection 143(1)Section 80HHCSection 139(1)Section 80IBSection 10BSection 263

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)(iia)section 80hhsection 80ia(4)section 80hhcdeduction under section 80iainfrastructure facilitydeduction u/s 80iatax benefitadditional depreciationsection 80iasection 80asection 80i

Judgments citing Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT

ITO, Ward-4(3), Bhubaneswar vs. Backbone Arss Jv, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 275/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Sept 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.S.Panda/K.Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 80I

…lying objects and reasons for a grant of deduction to an enterprise engaged in the development of an infrastructure facility. The provision was intended to give an incentive to investment for infrastructural growth in the country. In Bajaj Tempo v. CIT 119921 196 ITR 188/62 Taxman 480, the Supreme Court emphasized that a provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally. In the instant case, the administrative circulars issued by the CBDT proceeded on that basis by adopting a liberal view of the scope and ambit of the provisions of section 80-IA.…

ITO, Ward-4(3), Bhubaneswar vs. Backbone Arss Jv, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 274/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Sept 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P.S.Panda/K.Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 80I

…lying objects and reasons for a grant of deduction to an enterprise engaged in the development of an infrastructure facility. The provision was intended to give an incentive to investment for infrastructural growth in the country. In Bajaj Tempo v. CIT 119921 196 ITR 188/62 Taxman 480, the Supreme Court emphasized that a provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally. In the instant case, the administrative circulars issued by the CBDT proceeded on that basis by adopting a liberal view of the scope and ambit of the provisions of section 80-IA.…

M/S. Leo Fasteners, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Pondicherry

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

ITA 736/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.736/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Leo Fasteners, The Additional Commissioner Of Rep. By Its Partner, Vs. Income Tax, Pondicherry Range, A-27A, Industrial Estate, Pondicherry. Thattanchavady, Pondicherry 605 009. [Pan:Aabfl0652J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Smt. G. Vardhini Karthick, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Xii, Chennai, Dated 23.03.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09, Wherein, The Assessee Has Challenged Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Deductions Claimed Under Section 80Ib As Well As 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Smt. G. Vardhini Karthick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.736/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/s. Leo Fasteners, The Additional Commissioner of Rep. by its Partner, Vs. Income Tax, Pondicherry Range, A-27A, Industrial Estate, Pondicherry. Thattanchavady, Pondicherry 605 009. [PAN:AABFL0652J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Smt. G. Vardhini Karth…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1697/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…nto an agreement for coal handling with the TNEB itself. Thus the appellant satisfies the requirements in the entirety for claiming the deduction u/s 801A (4) of the IT Act. The appellant further placed its reliance in the case / of Baja] Tempo Ltd., Vs. CIT 196 ITR 188 (SC) wherein the Apex Court 37 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 has held that the provision relating to deduction u/s 80 of the Act should be construed liberally and in favour of the assessee. Thus, the appellant is eligible to claim of the deduction u/s 801A and claimed correctly. However, keeping in view of the objections raised by the…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1696/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…nto an agreement for coal handling with the TNEB itself. Thus the appellant satisfies the requirements in the entirety for claiming the deduction u/s 801A (4) of the IT Act. The appellant further placed its reliance in the case / of Baja] Tempo Ltd., Vs. CIT 196 ITR 188 (SC) wherein the Apex Court 37 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 has held that the provision relating to deduction u/s 80 of the Act should be construed liberally and in favour of the assessee. Thus, the appellant is eligible to claim of the deduction u/s 801A and claimed correctly. However, keeping in view of the objections raised by the…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…nto an agreement for coal handling with the TNEB itself. Thus the appellant satisfies the requirements in the entirety for claiming the deduction u/s 801A (4) of the IT Act. The appellant further placed its reliance in the case / of Baja] Tempo Ltd., Vs. CIT 196 ITR 188 (SC) wherein the Apex Court 37 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 has held that the provision relating to deduction u/s 80 of the Act should be construed liberally and in favour of the assessee. Thus, the appellant is eligible to claim of the deduction u/s 801A and claimed correctly. However, keeping in view of the objections raised by the…

The Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director G.Ranga Rao. Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

C.A. No.-010245-010245 - 2017Supreme Court08 Aug 2017
Section 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

…Jalandhar v. Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Limited2 this Court held that a Co-operative Society carrying a business of banking would be entitled for deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Plea of the appellant was 1 (1998) 6 SCC 129 2 (2012) 13 SCC 788 12 that if the intention of legislature was not to grant deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) to the cooperative societies carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members, said provision would have been deleted from the Statute. According to the learned senior counsel, the new proviso to Section 80P(4) which…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S International Tractors Ltd

ITA/1082/2005HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…cept for these debatable issues, there was no justification for re-opening the assessment. Reliance was placed on Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Mr Vohra also relied on the decisions in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC); CIT v. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd. (supra); Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT (supra); CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd (supra) and CIT v. Sunder Forging (supra) to urge that the interpretation placed on Section 80-IA by the Revenue was untenable and that if in the previous year relating to the initial…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. International Tractors Ltd

ITA/690/2008HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…cept for these debatable issues, there was no justification for re-opening the assessment. Reliance was placed on Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Mr Vohra also relied on the decisions in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC); CIT v. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd. (supra); Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT (supra); CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd (supra) and CIT v. Sunder Forging (supra) to urge that the interpretation placed on Section 80-IA by the Revenue was untenable and that if in the previous year relating to the initial…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu) vs. International Tractors Limited

ITA/1189/2009HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…cept for these debatable issues, there was no justification for re-opening the assessment. Reliance was placed on Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Mr Vohra also relied on the decisions in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC); CIT v. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd. (supra); Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT (supra); CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd (supra) and CIT v. Sunder Forging (supra) to urge that the interpretation placed on Section 80-IA by the Revenue was untenable and that if in the previous year relating to the initial…

Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Gtl Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5419/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 10BSection 143(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘G’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member ITA NOs.5245 & 5419/Mum/2010 Assessment Years: 2005-06 and 2006-07 DCIT-2(1), M/s GTL Ltd. R. No.575, 5th Floor, बनाम/ Global Vision Electronic M.K. Road, Sadan-II, MID TTC Vs. Mumbai-400020 Industrial Area, Mahape, Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAACG3742L "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Dr. K. Shivaram & Miss N…

Rajpal Trehan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6113/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta &For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DR
Section 133B(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 54Section 54F

…r.) " Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad.) " CIT Vs R. L. Sood 245 ITR 727 (Del.) " Smt. Shashi Verma 224 ITR 106 (MP) " Smt. Rajneet Sandhu Vs DCIT (2010) 133 TTJ 64 (Chd.) " Narsimha Raju Rudra Rao Vs ACIT 35 Taxman 90 (Hyd. Trib.) " Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs CIT 196 ITR 188 (SC) " Satish Chandra Gupta Vs AO 54 ITD 508 (Del. Trib.) " CIT Vs Smt. B. B. Shanthakumari 126 DTR 436 (Kar.) " Smt. Ranjneet Sandhu Vs DCIT 133 TTJ 64 (Chd.) " Narashimha Raju Rudra Raju Vs ACIT 35 Taxman 90 (Hyd. Trib.) " Satish Chandra Gupta Vs AO 54 ITD 508 (Del. Trib.) 10. In his rival submissions the ld. DR reiterated the observations made…

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Discoverture Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 50/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bibek Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KULDIP SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. M/s. Discoverture Solutions (India) Pvt Ltd., E/48, Bhubaneswar. Infocity, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Bibek Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24/04/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : /04/ 2017 O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- II, Bhubaneswar, dated13.11.2014,…

Shri Uday Sood, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4834/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Shri Uday Sood Vs. The I.T.O 1005, Sector – 15 Ward – 8(2) Faridabad, Haryana New Delhi Pan : Adzps 5454 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr- DR
Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F

…filing of return u/s 139(4) of the Act, therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54 of the Act of the full amount of Rs. 1,35,16,645/-. 14. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 196 ITR 188 he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that a provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally. Since a provision intended for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it, too, has to be construed liberally s…

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5065/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 80Section 80l

…. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 669 (Guj), has pointed out that once deduction is allowed in the first year, revenue has no power to deny the deduction in subsequent assessment years as provided under the Act. 93. Even the Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Tempo's case (196 ITR 188) held that a provision in the taxing statute for promoting growth and development is to be construed liberally and hence, even the restriction contained in such a provision has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it. 94. The CIT(A) has also raised an objection to the effect that since L & T was not…

M/S. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7283/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…ying objects and reasons for a grant of deduction to an enterprise engaged in the development of an infrastructure facility. The provision was intended to give an incentive to investment for infrastructural growth in the country. In Bajaj Tempo Vs. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 the Supreme Court emphasized that a provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally. In the present case, the administrative circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes proceeded on that basis by adopting a liberal view of the scope and ambit of the provisions of secti…

M/S. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7282/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…ying objects and reasons for a grant of deduction to an enterprise engaged in the development of an infrastructure facility. The provision was intended to give an incentive to investment for infrastructural growth in the country. In Bajaj Tempo Vs. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 the Supreme Court emphasized that a provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally. In the present case, the administrative circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes proceeded on that basis by adopting a liberal view of the scope and ambit of the provisions of secti…

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

…Vv ACIT, Hon'ble ITAT, Madras Bench has held that where assessee had invested entire net consideration of capital asset sold in constructing residential house is eligible for claim of exemption u/s. 54F and relying on the case laws of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs CIT, 196 ITR 188 (SC) and Satish Chandra Gupta vs AO, 54 ITO 508 Delhi the Apex Court held that a beneficial provision has to be construed liberally so as to promote the purpose for which the section was introduced. Therefore considering the above the intention of the Legislature was to invest the acquisition of a residential house and completion of construction…

Niamat Mahroof Virji, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1964/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1964/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Niamat Mahroof Virji, I.T.O. 17(3)(3), बनाम/ Unit 232, 2 Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, V. Bussa Udyog Bhavan, Opp Parel P.O., T.J. Road, Mumbai. Sewree. Mumbai – 400 015. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aahpv1071H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Neil Philip
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 54E

…Being a beneficial provision through which an incentive is given, an argument has been raised, that such provision should be interpreted liberally. For this legal proposition of liberal interpretation decisions cited are namely, Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 196 ITR 188/62 Taxman 480 (SC), CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1962] 196 ITR 149/62 Taxman 471 (SC) and CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC). Even it has also been argued that the highest Revenue Authority, i.e., CBDT has also taken due cognizance of such incentive provisions, therefore, granted relaxation. Such as in CBDT Circular…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

ITTA/580/2016HC Telangana28 Nov 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR