CBDT v. Aditya V. Birla

170 ITR 137Supreme Court of India1988#13579 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing CBDT v. Aditya V. Birla

Shri Pavan M.Sharma L/H of Late Mahesh L.Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The ADIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2772/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…It is a well settled principle of law, that if the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, then the same may not be open to interpretation and the plain language of the statute has to be respected. The Supreme Court in CBDT v. Aditya V. Birla [1988] 170 ITR 137, held that when the literal meaning is clear, one need not bother any more for the intention or the purpose. The five Judges Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tami Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 while discussing the period of limitation for declaration, the court reaffirmed the literal rule and held th…

Shri Pavan M.Sharma L/H of Late Mahesh L.Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The ADIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2771/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…It is a well settled principle of law, that if the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, then the same may not be open to interpretation and the plain language of the statute has to be respected. The Supreme Court in CBDT v. Aditya V. Birla [1988] 170 ITR 137, held that when the literal meaning is clear, one need not bother any more for the intention or the purpose. The five Judges Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tami Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 while discussing the period of limitation for declaration, the court reaffirmed the literal rule and held th…

Shri Pavan M.Sharma L/H of Late Mahesh L.Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1032/AHD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…It is a well settled principle of law, that if the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, then the same may not be open to interpretation and the plain language of the statute has to be respected. The Supreme Court in CBDT v. Aditya V. Birla [1988] 170 ITR 137, held that when the literal meaning is clear, one need not bother any more for the intention or the purpose. The five Judges Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tami Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 while discussing the period of limitation for declaration, the court reaffirmed the literal rule and held th…

Shri Pavan M.Sharma L/H of Late Mahesh L.Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/AHD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…It is a well settled principle of law, that if the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, then the same may not be open to interpretation and the plain language of the statute has to be respected. The Supreme Court in CBDT v. Aditya V. Birla [1988] 170 ITR 137, held that when the literal meaning is clear, one need not bother any more for the intention or the purpose. The five Judges Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tami Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 while discussing the period of limitation for declaration, the court reaffirmed the literal rule and held th…

Shri Pavan M.Sharma L/H of Late Mahesh L.Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…It is a well settled principle of law, that if the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, then the same may not be open to interpretation and the plain language of the statute has to be respected. The Supreme Court in CBDT v. Aditya V. Birla [1988] 170 ITR 137, held that when the literal meaning is clear, one need not bother any more for the intention or the purpose. The five Judges Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tami Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 while discussing the period of limitation for declaration, the court reaffirmed the literal rule and held th…

Shri Pavan M.Sharma L/H of Late Mahesh L.Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1029/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…It is a well settled principle of law, that if the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, then the same may not be open to interpretation and the plain language of the statute has to be respected. The Supreme Court in CBDT v. Aditya V. Birla [1988] 170 ITR 137, held that when the literal meaning is clear, one need not bother any more for the intention or the purpose. The five Judges Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tami Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 while discussing the period of limitation for declaration, the court reaffirmed the literal rule and held th…

D.C.I.T.CC - Xxviii, Kol., Kolkata vs. M/S Binani Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 144/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/ Shri K.V. Beswal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, ld.DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member, and Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 144/Kol/2013 A.Y 2009-10 D.C.I.T, C.C-XXVIII, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Binani Industries Ltd PAN: AABCB0979C (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant/Department: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, ld.DR For the Respondent/Assessee: S/ Shri K.V. Beswal, FCA Vijay Mehta, ld.ARs Date of Hearing: 15-02-2016 Date of Pronouncement: 02-03-2016 ORDER SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM : This appeal of the revenue arises out of the order of the Learned CIT(A), Central-1, Kolka…

CBDT v. Aditya V. Birla (170 ITR 137) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax