CIT v. J.H. Gotla

156 ITR 323Supreme Court of India1985#549 most cited

What is CIT v. J.H. Gotla authority for?

The Supreme Court holds that for income tax purposes, the term 'income' includes 'loss,' allowing for the set-off of a spouse's or minor child's business losses when their income is clubbed with the assessee. This decision emphasizes interpreting tax statutes, especially benevolent provisions, by considering the legislative scheme over a strict literal construction.

176

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. J.H. Gotla · J.H. Gotla · Section 64 · Section 16(3) 1922 Act · clubbing of income · set off of losses · income includes loss · statutory interpretation · liberal construction · benevolent provision · Section 273B · penalty

Also reported as

4 SCC 343

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 144BSection 10(38)Section 11Section 111A

Issues it is cited on

section 140a(1)section 215section 207section 2(43)section 262section 2(1)section 209section 208section 210section 115jaasection 140aminimum alternate tax

Judgments citing CIT v. J.H. Gotla

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1331/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…relies on the below judgments: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 • Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009]185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 • Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 205/224 ITR 677 (SC) • CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 23 Taxman 14J/ 156 ITR 323 (SC)]. The Supreme Court in its Judgment Alom Extrusions had held that "When a proviso in a section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, the proviso which supplies an obvious omission therein is required to be read retrospectively in operation, particularly to give effect to the section as a whole .... I…

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1330/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…relies on the below judgments: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 • Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009]185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 • Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 205/224 ITR 677 (SC) • CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 23 Taxman 14J/ 156 ITR 323 (SC)]. The Supreme Court in its Judgment Alom Extrusions had held that "When a proviso in a section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, the proviso which supplies an obvious omission therein is required to be read retrospectively in operation, particularly to give effect to the section as a whole .... I…

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1329/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…relies on the below judgments: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 • Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009]185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 • Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 205/224 ITR 677 (SC) • CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 23 Taxman 14J/ 156 ITR 323 (SC)]. The Supreme Court in its Judgment Alom Extrusions had held that "When a proviso in a section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, the proviso which supplies an obvious omission therein is required to be read retrospectively in operation, particularly to give effect to the section as a whole .... I…

Manimegalai Ganesan, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Range 10, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1328/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…relies on the below judgments: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 • Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009]185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 • Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 205/224 ITR 677 (SC) • CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 23 Taxman 14J/ 156 ITR 323 (SC)]. The Supreme Court in its Judgment Alom Extrusions had held that "When a proviso in a section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, the proviso which supplies an obvious omission therein is required to be read retrospectively in operation, particularly to give effect to the section as a whole .... I…

Gemological Institute of America Inc., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (It) Circle- 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 7740/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

…ction of tax twice over by the Department, which can never be the intention of the legislature and any interpretation which leads to such absurd result must be avoided. Reliance was placed on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgments in the cases of CIT Vs J H Gotla (156 ITR 323) and K P Varghese Vs ITO (131 ITR 597). As regards reliance placed by the learned Departmental Representative (“DR”) on the provisions of section 92CE of the Act, it is contended that such a reliance is completely erroneous and misconceived for the following reasons: The said provision, has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from…

Gemological Institute of America Inc., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (It) Circle- 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 7739/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

…ction of tax twice over by the Department, which can never be the intention of the legislature and any interpretation which leads to such absurd result must be avoided. Reliance was placed on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgments in the cases of CIT Vs J H Gotla (156 ITR 323) and K P Varghese Vs ITO (131 ITR 597). As regards reliance placed by the learned Departmental Representative (“DR”) on the provisions of section 92CE of the Act, it is contended that such a reliance is completely erroneous and misconceived for the following reasons: The said provision, has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from…

Gemological Institute of America Inc., Mumbai vs. DCIT(It) Cir. 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 53/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

…ction of tax twice over by the Department, which can never be the intention of the legislature and any interpretation which leads to such absurd result must be avoided. Reliance was placed on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgments in the cases of CIT Vs J H Gotla (156 ITR 323) and K P Varghese Vs ITO (131 ITR 597). As regards reliance placed by the learned Departmental Representative (“DR”) on the provisions of section 92CE of the Act, it is contended that such a reliance is completely erroneous and misconceived for the following reasons: The said provision, has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from…

Gemological Institute of America, Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 7174/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

…ction of tax twice over by the Department, which can never be the intention of the legislature and any interpretation which leads to such absurd result must be avoided. Reliance was placed on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgments in the cases of CIT Vs J H Gotla (156 ITR 323) and K P Varghese Vs ITO (131 ITR 597). As regards reliance placed by the learned Departmental Representative (“DR”) on the provisions of section 92CE of the Act, it is contended that such a reliance is completely erroneous and misconceived for the following reasons: The said provision, has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from…

Gemological Institute of America, Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1836/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

…ction of tax twice over by the Department, which can never be the intention of the legislature and any interpretation which leads to such absurd result must be avoided. Reliance was placed on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgments in the cases of CIT Vs J H Gotla (156 ITR 323) and K P Varghese Vs ITO (131 ITR 597). As regards reliance placed by the learned Departmental Representative (“DR”) on the provisions of section 92CE of the Act, it is contended that such a reliance is completely erroneous and misconceived for the following reasons: The said provision, has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from…

Gemological Institute of America Inc., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 386/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

…ction of tax twice over by the Department, which can never be the intention of the legislature and any interpretation which leads to such absurd result must be avoided. Reliance was placed on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgments in the cases of CIT Vs J H Gotla (156 ITR 323) and K P Varghese Vs ITO (131 ITR 597). As regards reliance placed by the learned Departmental Representative (“DR”) on the provisions of section 92CE of the Act, it is contended that such a reliance is completely erroneous and misconceived for the following reasons: The said provision, has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Now Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.)

C.A. No.-001106-001106 - 2021Supreme Court06 Apr 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 254

…itutional validity of an appeal provision in the Income Tax Act. Also, it is important to remember that the golden rule of interpretation is not given a go-by when it comes to interpretation of tax statutes. This Court in CIT v. J.H. Gotla (1985) 4 SCC 343, put it well when it said: “46. Where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature, the Court might modify the language used by the Legislature so as to achieve the intention of the Legislature and produce a rational constru…

Panther Industrial Products Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. - 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1080/MUM/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 70Section 73Section 79

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.1080 & 1081/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2001–02) Panther Industrial Products Ltd. Radha Bhavan, 1st Floor 121, Nagindas Master Road ……………. Assessee Fort, Mumbai 400 023 PAN – AAACB2058G v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2(2)(4), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Revenue by : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi Date of Hearing – 27.01.2021 Date of Order – 8.03.2021 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The assessee’s appeal being ITA no.1081/Mum.…

Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 830/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr.I.Dinesh, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT
Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस. जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.830/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s.Tamil Nadu Cements Corp. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.735, LLA Building, Corporate Ward-3(1), Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai-600 005. [PAN: AABCT 1819 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.I.Dinesh, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Abani Kanta N…

Gdx Facility & Management Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(10, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5218/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Naman Desai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…to Section 43B of the 1961 Act, which amendments to Section 43B of the 1961 Act were held to be retrospective in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred in its decision in Alom Extrusion (supra) to its earlier decision in CIT v. J.H. © 9 Gotla [1985] 156 ITR 323(SC) , para 10 that intention of the legislature is to be found out from the language used and if strict literal construction leads to an absurd result i.e. result not intended to be sub served by the object of the legislation found in the manner indicated before, then if another construction is possible apart from strict literal construction, the…

Srinivasa Fashins Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-6(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1396/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.09.2020
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…m 1-4-2004. However, the matter before us involves the principle of construction to be placed on the provisions of Finance Act, 2003. 10. Before concluding, we extract hereinbelow the relevant observations of this Court in the case of CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 156 ITR 323, which reads as under: "...We should find out the intention from the language used by the Legislature and if strict literal construction leads to an absurd result, i.e., a result not intended to be subserved by the object of the legislation found in the manner indicated before, then if another construction is possible apart from strict literal c…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 20/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…of more than one constructions, that construction must be adopted which will give meaning and effect to all the other provisions of enactment rather than which will make one or more of the provisions "otiose". Further, in the case of CIT vrs J.H. Gotta (1985) 156 ITR 323 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the plane literal interpretation of a statutory provision produced a manifestly unjust result which could never have been intended by the legislature, the court might modify the language 29 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 used by the legislature so as to achieve the intention of the…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 19/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…of more than one constructions, that construction must be adopted which will give meaning and effect to all the other provisions of enactment rather than which will make one or more of the provisions "otiose". Further, in the case of CIT vrs J.H. Gotta (1985) 156 ITR 323 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the plane literal interpretation of a statutory provision produced a manifestly unjust result which could never have been intended by the legislature, the court might modify the language 29 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 used by the legislature so as to achieve the intention of the…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 386/CTK/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…of more than one constructions, that construction must be adopted which will give meaning and effect to all the other provisions of enactment rather than which will make one or more of the provisions "otiose". Further, in the case of CIT vrs J.H. Gotta (1985) 156 ITR 323 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the plane literal interpretation of a statutory provision produced a manifestly unjust result which could never have been intended by the legislature, the court might modify the language 29 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 used by the legislature so as to achieve the intention of the…

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143

…nsideration to the matter. We find the assessee's case is wholly unmaintainable in view of the law as explained by the hon'ble apex court over a series of decisions, viz. CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC); CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 156 ITR 323 (SC) and CIT (Central) v. Harprasad and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC), to cite some. We begin by reproducing/enlisting the observations by the apex court from the said decisions. In CIT (Central) v. Harprasad and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC), also relied upon by the Assessing Officer, which decision was also in context of capital g…

West Bengal Trade Promotion Organisation Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward - 1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 36/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Dutta, CA, Shri Saurabh Bagaria, Advocate & Shri RiteshFor Respondent: Shri I. Jamir, CIT, Sr. DR & Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 25

…a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act or arises by necessary and distinct implication. Dogmatically framed, the rule is no more than a presumption, and thus could be displaced by out weighing factors. CIT vs J.H.Gotla reported in (1985) 156 ITR 323 (SC) If the purpose of a particular provision is easily discernible from the whole of the scheme of the Act which in this case, is to counteract the effect of transfer of assets so far as computation of income of the assessee is concerned, then bearing that purpose in mind, we should find out the intention from the language used by the legislatur…