Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT

278 ITR 546Supreme Court of India2005#4018 most cited

What is Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Statutory interpretation requires adhering to the plain meaning of the words used by the legislature to discern legislative intent, especially when the meaning is unambiguous.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT · statutory interpretation · legislative intent · plain meaning · unambiguous words · Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)Section 35ABBSection 40(a)(ia)Section 45
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 263section 26income from other sourcessection 27appeal before the tribunaltransferprescribedopportunity of being heardpersoncompanysection 143(3)india

Judgments citing Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT Cir 7(1) vs. M/S Novartis India Ltd

ITA 5258/MUM/2003[1997 - 98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2017
For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: S/Shri P.R. Ghosh & K.V. Vispute- DR

…s and perused the material before us. 16.1.We find that in the appeal decided for the year 1991-92,Tribunal has held as under: “It is not in dispute before us that in view of the decision of the Hon’b1e Supreme Court in the case of Brittania India Ltd. Vs.CIT 278 ITR 546(SC),any expenditure on maintenance of a guest house cannot be allowed as a deduction.The learned counsel for the Assessee however submitted that the expenses to the extent it relates to provision of food to employees would not, fall within the meaning of the expression “expenditure incurred in maintenance of the guest house’ (See Canteen supply m…

Boomi Bottling Gas, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 268/CHNY/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.Ponraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jt. CIT
Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 271FSection 271GSection 272ASection 272B

…t has all the same to be interpreted in terms of and having regard to its clear language. If the intention is not found in the language implied by the statue, it is the edict of the legislature, where is it to be found (Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 278 ITR 546 (SC). Reference in this context may also to be made to the decision in Kum. A.B.Shanti (supra). 4.2 The assessee’s next plea is of the amounts being required for incurring agricultural expenses is also found to be no more than a bald statement. It is firstly not proved, with both Revenue authorities recording a clear finding of the claim being n…

DCIT (TDS) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Cma Cgm Global India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2361/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dcit (Tds)-1(1) M/S. Cma Cgm Global India Room No. 802, K.G. Mittal Private Limited Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. India Bulls Finance Center Vs. Charni Road, Mumbai-0002 Tower-3, 8Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Rd (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaccc2219E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.K. PodarFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Tiwari
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…y such special provision alone. Application of general provisions stands excluded on that. This rule has got the sanction from several Courts in the country including the Hon’ble apex Court in Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2005) 198 CTR (SC) 313 : (2005) 278 ITR 546 (SC) and that of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 119 CTR (Bom) 319 : (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). Coming back to the facts of the present case we find that the payments made to NSICT are straightway covered under Expln. III(c) below s. 194C(2). This being a specific provision encompassing the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Srf Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2853/DEL/2012[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 1995-96 Vs. M/S. Srf Ltd., Block-C, Sector - Acit, Circle-9(1), Room No. 163, C.R. Building, New Delhi 45, Gurgaon Pan : Aaacs0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 06/03/2012 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 1995-96, In Respect Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”), Levied By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.3,43,70,911/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Craves To Amend Modify, Alter, Add Or Forego Any Ground Of Appeal At Any Tiem Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 30

…of income filed on 30/11/1995 based on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Chase Bright Steel Limited (1989) 177 ITR 124 ( Bom). The controversy was settled by 4 AY: 1995-96 the judgment dated 05/10/2005 in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2005) 278 ITR 546 (SC).Thus, it was not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and at the time of filing of return, the issue was debatable, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be l…

M/S. State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT. Spl. RG. - 27, Mumbai

ITA 3823/MUM/2005[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 1997-1998

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3823-24/Mum/2005 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S.1997-98, 1998-99 वष" State Bank Of India Addl. Cit- Range-2(2) Accounts & Compliance Deptt. Mumbai. Corporate Centre,Madam Cama Road Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Pan:Aaacs 8577 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajeshwar Yadav Assessee By:Shri Girish Dave सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :02.03.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) खंडपीठ के अनुसार Per Bench: Challenging The Orders Dated 24.3.2005 & 28.3.2005 The Asssessee Has Filed The Appeals For Above Mentioned Two Ay.S Raising Various Grounds Of Appeal. It Has Also Filed Additional Grounds Of Appeal For The Ay 1997-98.Assessee,A Public Sector Bank Is Engaged In The Business Of Banking.The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Income Etc., For Both The Years Can Be Summarised As Under : A.Y. Roi Filed Returned Assessment Assessed Dt. Of Orders On Income(Rs.) Dt. Income(Rs.) Of Cit(A) 1997-98 28.11.1997 2086,56,04,580/- 27.03.2000 2433,18,77,427/- 24.3.2005 1998-99 30.11.1998 2816,41,01,920/- 14.02.2001 3558,87,03,620/- 28.3.2005

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri Rajeshwar Yadav
Section 254(1)

…the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that the issue was decided against the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 1 3823-24/M/05-SBI case of Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs CIT, reported in 278 ITR 546 (SC). Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The same is upheld.” Following the earlier order of this Tribunal we decide this issue against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Accordingly the order of CIT(A) qua this issue is upheld.” Respectfully,following the above,Ground No.1 is decided against th…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/165/2001HC Delhi19 Jan 2015
Section 260ASection 32ASection 37(4)Section 80Section 80I

…covered. So far as question No.1 i.e. the deductibility of guest house expenses under Section 37(4) is concerned it is not disputed that the matter is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors., (2005) 278 ITR 546 (SC). The question is accordingly answered in terms of the said decision, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Question No.3 in ITA 165/2001 corresponds to question No.2 in ITA 170/2001. This pertains to permissibility of interest on FDR, on miscellaneous interest, on delayed payments and their eligibility under sectio…

Comr. of It Hyd vs. M/S Neeraj Petro Chemicals Ltd Hyd

ITTA/77/2000HC Telangana23 Jul 2013

Income Tax (Ltu) vs. Nestle India Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/1505/2010HC Delhi01 Oct 2010
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…see had filed its return of income for the relevant Assessment Year 1996-1997 i.e. much prior to the issue being finally settled by the Supreme Court vide order dated 24th March, 2006 in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 278 ITR 546. 4. Consequently, as the said expense was debatable on the date on which the respondent-assessee filed its return, we are of the opinion that no penalty can be levied [see Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)]. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in limine. MANMOHAN, J…

CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1505 / 2010HC Delhi01 Oct 2010
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…see had filed its return of income for the relevant Assessment Year 1996-1997 i.e. much prior to the issue being finally settled by the Supreme Court vide order dated 24th March, 2006 in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 278 ITR 546. 4. Consequently, as the said expense was debatable on the date on which the respondent-assessee filed its return, we are of the opinion that no penalty can be levied [see Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)]. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in limine. MANMOHAN, J…