CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd.

3 SCC 346Supreme Court of India1999#646 most cited

What is CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. authority for?

Fiscal statutes must be construed strictly and literally. When the language is plain and unambiguous, courts must give effect to it without considering legislative intent or equitable considerations.

153

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. · strict interpretation of fiscal statutes · literal construction · unambiguous language · legislative intent · equitable considerations · interpretation of tax laws · Section 43B · Section 36(va) · Section 147 · Section 10(23C)

Also reported as

237 ITR 24103 Taxmann 342

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 147Section 250Section 10(23C)(iiiae)Section 115JBSection 139(4A)Section 139(4C)

Issues it is cited on

section 43(b)section 3(b)section 34(1)(iv)section 36(va)actual payment basissection 43b(b)section 34(1)section 36(1)(iv)section 40a(2)section 250ofsection 41section 34

Judgments citing CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX NON CORP CIRCLE II MADURAI, MADURAI vs. VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LIMITED, VIRUDHUNAGAR

ITA 2700/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used." [SEE: CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [1999] 103 Taxman 342/237 ITR 24 (SC) and Mahim Patram (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India 2008 taxmann.com 1074 (SC)] [See: Principles of statutory interpretation, justice G.P. Singh, 14th edition, page 879). Therefore, the question of going into intention or object behind the provision viz., section 36(1) (viia) of the Act does not arise. :-15-: ITA 2699 & 2700 Chny 2025 FY 2013-14, 20…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

C.A. No.-008291-008291 - 2015Supreme Court15 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 44C

…2016 Page 21 of 55 (i) Basic Principles of Interpretation 28. It is a well-established rule that taxing statutes have to be strictly construed. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 346, this Court was determining the meaning of the word ‘moneys’ in the expression ‘money’s payable’ under Section 41(2) of the Act, 1961. In that context, the Court referenced the following concerning the strict interpretation of taxation statutes: “9. The principle that a taxing statute should be strictly construed is well settled. In Princ…

M/S. BAY FORGE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CO, CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2329/CHNY/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

…s, effect is to be given without going behind the wisdom of the legislature and also regardless of the result. It is also a cardinal principle of interpretation of fiscal statutes that they should be construed strictly - (see CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 24 1 (SC). So long as the provision is free from ambiguity, there is no need to draw an analogy (see Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Dy. CIT [1993] 200 ITR 434 (Raj.). The legal position is beautifully summed up by the Supreme Court in the case of CC&CE v. Hongo India (P.) Ltd. [2009] 5 SCC 791 in the following words: "2. At the cost of some re…

THIRUVARUR LIONS EYE HOSPITAL TRUST,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2535/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2531 & 2535/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 M/S. Thiruvarur Lions Eye The Income Tax Officer, Hospital Trust, Vs. Thiruvarur 157, Vandampalai, Kangalanchery Post, Thiruvarur – 610 101. Pan: Aaatt 0632P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Ambarish, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri D. Ambarish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 10Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा"य" एवं "ी जगद"श, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 2531 & 2535/CHNY/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 M/s. Thiruvarur Lions Eye The Income Tax Officer, Hospital Trust, Vs. Thiruvarur 157, Vandampalai, Kangalanchery Post, Thiruvarur – 610 101. PAN: AAATT 0632P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri D. Ambarish, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Ms.…

THIRUVARUR LIONS EYE HOSPITAL TRUST,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2531/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2531 & 2535/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 M/S. Thiruvarur Lions Eye The Income Tax Officer, Hospital Trust, Vs. Thiruvarur 157, Vandampalai, Kangalanchery Post, Thiruvarur – 610 101. Pan: Aaatt 0632P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Ambarish, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri D. Ambarish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 10Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा"य" एवं "ी जगद"श, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 2531 & 2535/CHNY/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 M/s. Thiruvarur Lions Eye The Income Tax Officer, Hospital Trust, Vs. Thiruvarur 157, Vandampalai, Kangalanchery Post, Thiruvarur – 610 101. PAN: AAATT 0632P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri D. Ambarish, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Ms.…

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

ITA 257/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agrwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Oriental Charitable Foundation ACIT Circle-1(1)(Exempt), P-46A, Radha Bazar Lane, Vs Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. (PAN: AAATO0629B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Siddarth Agrwal, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 08.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the revision order of the Ld. Commissio…

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & CO 76/MUM/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire BKC, 7th Floor, Room no 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. PAN/GIR No. AAACH2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire BKC, 7th Floor, Room no 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-40002…

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Novartis India Limited v. Asst. Commissioner of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6th& 7th Floor 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire BKC M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, BKC Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 PAN: AAACH2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner of Income –Tax – 7(1) v. M/s. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known as Hindustan Ciba G…

ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUNGNALAYA & RESEARCH CENTER,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE

ITA 714/PUN/2018[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Keyur Patel [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 22Section 253(1)(c)

…has been rightly fortified in the case of ‘Yash Society Vs CCIT’ [2015] 231 Taxmann 256 wherein the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court following the judicial precedents laid by Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Aditanar Educational Institution v. Addl. CIT [1997] 3 SCC 346’ and in ‘CIT Vs Metha Charitable Prajnalay Trust’ [2012] 28 Taxmann.com 73 (Del.) in similar facts & circumstance upheld the denial to grant registration and exemption by holding that, meagre amount of profits spent by for the benefit of few people of general public do not ispo-facto enough to establish the existence of the assessee is solely for p…

M/S ASHOK ENGINEERING WORKS,KORBA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 54/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 53 & 54/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Ashoka Engineering Works, Lig-51, Sada Colony, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.)-495 450 Pan : Aaafw5581G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature. *** 34. The passages extracted above, were quoted with approval by this Court in at least two decisions being CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as “Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]”, for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of five Judges, after citing the above passage from Justice G.P. Singh's treatis…

M/S ASHOKA ENGINEERING WORKS,KORBA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 53/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 53 & 54/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Ashoka Engineering Works, Lig-51, Sada Colony, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.)-495 450 Pan : Aaafw5581G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature. *** 34. The passages extracted above, were quoted with approval by this Court in at least two decisions being CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as “Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]”, for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of five Judges, after citing the above passage from Justice G.P. Singh's treatis…

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 241/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 241/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 ATC Logistical Solutions Pvt. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Ltd. Amritsar Transport Co. Income tax, Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd.3981/83 1st Floor Naya Amritsar. Bazar, New Delhi. [PAN:-AABCA6200A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 04.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2023 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was f…

BHAVNA ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 487/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Bhavna Enterprise, Vs. The Adit, 30, Ambika Nagar Society, Cpc, Bengaluru Hazira Road, Ichchhapore, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer: Surat - 394510 The Ito, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfb5274K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36

…be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature. *** 34. The passages extracted above, were quoted with approval by this Court in at least two decisions being CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as “Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]”, for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of five Judges, after citing the above passage from Justice G.P. Singh's treatis…

BEC PROJECTS LTD., ,BHILAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 06/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Bec Projects Limited 4/5, Industrial Estate, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan : Aaacb9275H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature. *** 34. The passages extracted above, were quoted with approval by this Court in at least two decisions being CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as “Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]”, for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of five Judges, after citing the above passage from Justice G.P. Singh's treatis…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1, RAIPUR vs. M/S. CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 96/RPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 96/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature. *** 34. The passages extracted above, were quoted with approval by this Court in at least two decisions being CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as “Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]”, for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of five Judges, after citing the above passage 19 ACIT, CC-1, Raipur (C.G.) Vs.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-I, RAIPUR vs. MESERS CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 92/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited. 142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature. *** 34. The passages extracted above, were quoted with approval by this Court in at least two decisions being CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as “Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]”, for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of five Judges, after citing the above passage from Justice G.P. Singh's treatis…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, RAIPUR vs. MESERS CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 91/RPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited. 142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature. *** 34. The passages extracted above, were quoted with approval by this Court in at least two decisions being CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as “Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]”, for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of five Judges, after citing the above passage from Justice G.P. Singh's treatis…

M/S. RAJ PIPES,RAJNANDGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), RAIPUR

ITA 150/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(va)

…were not intended by the legislature. *** 34. The passages extracted above, were quoted with approval by this Court in at least two decisions being CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [CIT v. Kasturi & 17 M/s. Raj Pipes Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur Sons Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as “Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]”, for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of five Judges, after citing the above passage from Justice G.P. Singh's treatis…

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 81/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature. *** 34. The passages extracted above, were quoted with approval by this Court in at least two decisions being CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. 29 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. ITA No.81/RPR/2020 Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as “Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]”, for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of f…

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 143/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature. *** 34. The passages extracted above, were quoted with approval by this Court in at least two decisions being CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. 29 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. ITA No.81/RPR/2020 Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as “Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]”, for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of f…

Showing 1–20 of 153 · Page 1 of 8

...
CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. (3 SCC 346) — Cited in 153 Judgments | BharatTax