What is CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd. authority for?

A taxing statute must be strictly construed: the subject is not to be taxed unless the charging provision clearly and explicitly imposes the obligation, without room for intendment or implication. There is no equity about a tax, and nothing is to be read into or implied within the language used.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd.?

63 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd. (55 ITR 741), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142A, Section 143(3), Section 144BA, Section 153A, Section 153D, Section 23(1)(a).

CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd. (55 ITR 741)

M/S Nishant Finance Pvt.Ltd, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central (I), Indore

ITA 470/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…ral meaning of this expression is that general words or things do not derogate from special. This expression was explained to mean that when there is conflict between a general and special provision, the latter shall prevail (CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons[1966] 60 ITR 392 (Se) and Union of India v. India Fisheries (P.) Ltd. AIR 1966 SC 35.), or the general provisions must yield to the special provisions. (State of Gujarat v. Pate1 Ramjibhai AIR 1979 SC 1098.) The maxim is regarded as a 'cardinal principle of interpretation' (State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramjibhai AIR 1979 SC 1098), and is characterised as a well recog…

Shrimati Sharda Kasliwal, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central (I), Indore

ITA 469/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…ral meaning of this expression is that general words or things do not derogate from special. This expression was explained to mean that when there is conflict between a general and special provision, the latter shall prevail (CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons[1966] 60 ITR 392 (Se) and Union of India v. India Fisheries (P.) Ltd. AIR 1966 SC 35.), or the general provisions must yield to the special provisions. (State of Gujarat v. Pate1 Ramjibhai AIR 1979 SC 1098.) The maxim is regarded as a 'cardinal principle of interpretation' (State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramjibhai AIR 1979 SC 1098), and is characterised as a well recog…

M/S Pumarth Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Indore

ITA 468/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…ral meaning of this expression is that general words or things do not derogate from special. This expression was explained to mean that when there is conflict between a general and special provision, the latter shall prevail (CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons[1966] 60 ITR 392 (Se) and Union of India v. India Fisheries (P.) Ltd. AIR 1966 SC 35.), or the general provisions must yield to the special provisions. (State of Gujarat v. Pate1 Ramjibhai AIR 1979 SC 1098.) The maxim is regarded as a 'cardinal principle of interpretation' (State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramjibhai AIR 1979 SC 1098), and is characterised as a well recog…

Manoj Kasliwal, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central (1), Indore

ITA 466/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…ral meaning of this expression is that general words or things do not derogate from special. This expression was explained to mean that when there is conflict between a general and special provision, the latter shall prevail (CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons[1966] 60 ITR 392 (Se) and Union of India v. India Fisheries (P.) Ltd. AIR 1966 SC 35.), or the general provisions must yield to the special provisions. (State of Gujarat v. Pate1 Ramjibhai AIR 1979 SC 1098.) The maxim is regarded as a 'cardinal principle of interpretation' (State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramjibhai AIR 1979 SC 1098), and is characterised as a well recog…

Parth Kasliwal, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central (I), Indore

ITA 465/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…ral meaning of this expression is that general words or things do not derogate from special. This expression was explained to mean that when there is conflict between a general and special provision, the latter shall prevail (CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons[1966] 60 ITR 392 (Se) and Union of India v. India Fisheries (P.) Ltd. AIR 1966 SC 35.), or the general provisions must yield to the special provisions. (State of Gujarat v. Pate1 Ramjibhai AIR 1979 SC 1098.) The maxim is regarded as a 'cardinal principle of interpretation' (State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramjibhai AIR 1979 SC 1098), and is characterised as a well recog…

Dyputi Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S Pumarth Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 452/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…ral meaning of this expression is that general words or things do not derogate from special. This expression was explained to mean that when there is conflict between a general and special provision, the latter shall prevail (CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons[1966] 60 ITR 392 (Se) and Union of India v. India Fisheries (P.) Ltd. AIR 1966 SC 35.), or the general provisions must yield to the special provisions. (State of Gujarat v. Pate1 Ramjibhai AIR 1979 SC 1098.) The maxim is regarded as a 'cardinal principle of interpretation' (State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramjibhai AIR 1979 SC 1098), and is characterised as a well recog…

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…s referred to for the proposition that fiction created by the section should not be carried beyond the purpose for which it was intended which was reiterated by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Moon Mills Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 574, in CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd. [1965] 55 ITR 741 , in CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff [1963] 48 ITR 59 . It was submitted that the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Justice R.M. Datta [1989] 180 ITR 86 had held that the words of the statute are precise and unambigugus, they must be accepted as declaring the express intention of the legislation. The departmental representative contended that the amendment…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 6151/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-5705 & 6151/Del/2014. (AM) (JM) Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 5705/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/s Housing & Urban Development Addl. Commissioner of Income Corporation Ltd., Vs. Tax, (HUDCO), Hudco Bhawan, Range-12, New Delhi. Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. PAN No: AAACH0632A APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:- 6151/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ACIT, M/s Housing & Urban Circle 12(1), Vs. Developme…

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 5705/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-5705 & 6151/Del/2014. (AM) (JM) Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 5705/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/s Housing & Urban Development Addl. Commissioner of Income Corporation Ltd., Vs. Tax, (HUDCO), Hudco Bhawan, Range-12, New Delhi. Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. PAN No: AAACH0632A APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:- 6151/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ACIT, M/s Housing & Urban Circle 12(1), Vs. Developme…