CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd.

3 SCC 346Supreme Court of India1999#648 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 366,369 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.

Iti Education Committee, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer(Exemption), Bangalore

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

ITA 425/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Iti Education Committee, Vidyamandir, Dooravaninagar, Bengaluru. Pan : Aaaai0748L … Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward - 1, Bengaluru … Respondent Appellant By : Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.A Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Acit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, ACIT(DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)

…’s Education Society, Vs. CIT, (2015) 8 SCC 47, CIT Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Assn., (1980) 2 SCC 31, American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institute Vs. CBDTs & Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 509, Aditanar Educational Institution Vs. CIT (1997) 3 SCC 346 held as follows: 6. The relevant principles of law which will govern the first issue i.e. whether an educational institution or a university, as may be, exists only for educational purpose and not for profit are no longer res integra, having been dealt with by Page 11 of 16 a long line of decisions of this Court which have been elaborately noticed…

Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. Director of Income Tax(E)

The appeals are allowed but, in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs

ITA/807/2015HC Delhi03 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 12ASection 2Section 260

…place the entity outside the purview of Section 2 (15) read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The CIT (A) referred to the decisions in ACIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 2 SCC 31, Aditanar Education Institution v. ACIT (1997) 3 SCC 346 and ACIT v. Thanthi Trust (2001) 247 ITR 785 (SC). 12. For the subsequent AYs, the AO continued to deny the exemption by the assessment orders dated 26th November 2010, 15th December 2011 and 31st December 2008 for the AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2006-07. The CIT (A) by the corresponding orders dated 30th June 2011, 18th October 2012 and 22nd Fe…

Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. Director of Income Tax(E)

The appeals are allowed but, in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs

ITA/812/2015HC Delhi03 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 12ASection 2Section 260

…place the entity outside the purview of Section 2 (15) read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The CIT (A) referred to the decisions in ACIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 2 SCC 31, Aditanar Education Institution v. ACIT (1997) 3 SCC 346 and ACIT v. Thanthi Trust (2001) 247 ITR 785 (SC). 12. For the subsequent AYs, the AO continued to deny the exemption by the assessment orders dated 26th November 2010, 15th December 2011 and 31st December 2008 for the AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2006-07. The CIT (A) by the corresponding orders dated 30th June 2011, 18th October 2012 and 22nd Fe…

Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. Director of Income Tax (E)

The appeals are allowed but, in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs

ITA/811/2015HC Delhi03 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 12ASection 2Section 260

…place the entity outside the purview of Section 2 (15) read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The CIT (A) referred to the decisions in ACIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 2 SCC 31, Aditanar Education Institution v. ACIT (1997) 3 SCC 346 and ACIT v. Thanthi Trust (2001) 247 ITR 785 (SC). 12. For the subsequent AYs, the AO continued to deny the exemption by the assessment orders dated 26th November 2010, 15th December 2011 and 31st December 2008 for the AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2006-07. The CIT (A) by the corresponding orders dated 30th June 2011, 18th October 2012 and 22nd Fe…

Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. Director of Income Tax (E)

The appeals are allowed but, in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs

ITA/810/2015HC Delhi03 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 12ASection 2Section 260

…place the entity outside the purview of Section 2 (15) read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The CIT (A) referred to the decisions in ACIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 2 SCC 31, Aditanar Education Institution v. ACIT (1997) 3 SCC 346 and ACIT v. Thanthi Trust (2001) 247 ITR 785 (SC). 12. For the subsequent AYs, the AO continued to deny the exemption by the assessment orders dated 26th November 2010, 15th December 2011 and 31st December 2008 for the AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2006-07. The CIT (A) by the corresponding orders dated 30th June 2011, 18th October 2012 and 22nd Fe…

ACIT(Exemption), Jaipur vs. Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

ITA 105/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar (CIT)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 32

…of Section 10(23C) is to ignore the language of the section and to ignore the tests laid down in Surat Art Silk Cloth case (CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturer’s Association (1980) 2 SCC 31) Aditanar case (Aditanar Educational Institution vs. CIT (1997) 3 SCC 346) and American Hotel & Lodging Association, Educational Institute vs. CBDT(2008) 10 SCC 509). It is clear that when a surplus is ploughed back for educational purposes, the educational institution exists solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit.” In that case, the facts of the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were that th…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “आई आई” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई आई आई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“I”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C. N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5238/Mum/2003 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1997-1998 आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6224/Mum/2004 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1998-1999 आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6225/Mum/2004 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 Novartis India Ltd. ACIT-Circle-7(1) (Formerly known as Hindustan Ciba Gieg…

Visvesvaraya Tech.University vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-004361-004366 - 2016Supreme Court22 Apr 2016
Section 10Section 148

…ection 10(23-C) is to ignore the language of the section and to ignore the tests laid down in Surat Art Silk Cloth case [CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers' Assn.(1980) 2 SCC 31], Aditanar case [Aditanar Educational Institution v. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 346] and American Hotel & Lodging case [American Hotel & Lodging Assn. Educational Institute v. CBDT [(2008) 10 SCC 509]. It is clear that when a surplus is ploughed back for educational purposes, the educational institution exists solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit.” 2 (1980) 2 SCC 31 3 (2008)10 SCC 509…

Visvesvaraya Tech.University vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-004361-004366 - 2016Supreme Court22 Apr 2016
Section 10Section 148

…ection 10(23-C) is to ignore the language of the section and to ignore the tests laid down in Surat Art Silk Cloth case [CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers' Assn.(1980) 2 SCC 31], Aditanar case [Aditanar Educational Institution v. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 346] and American Hotel & Lodging case [American Hotel & Lodging Assn. Educational Institute v. CBDT [(2008) 10 SCC 509]. It is clear that when a surplus is ploughed back for educational purposes, the educational institution exists solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit.” 2 (1980) 2 SCC 31 3 (2008)10 SCC 509…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Kumar Raja Associates

In the result, all the Tax Revision

ITTA/191/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: Floor, Opp.Gurudware Bus Stop, Th Stat, 0/O.Meghana Towers, 4 Visakhapatnam. ... Petitioner & M/S.Pulp-N-Pack [P] Limited, Tadimalla ... Respondent : Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, Gp For Commercial Tax Counsel For The Respondent : Sri S Suribabu, Representing On Behalf Of Sri S R R Viswanath Counsel For The Petitioner

For Respondent: Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, GP for Commercial Tax
Section 22

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N TAX REVISION CASE Nos.83.135,149 & 191 of 2008 TAX REVISION CASE No.83 of 2008 Petition under Section 22 (1) under Rule 10 of APGST Rules under Section APGST Act, to revise the order dated 21.01.2008 made in T.A. No.61 of 2007 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad preferred against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Eluru in R.F.No.8/2007-2008 (CST Act), dated 23.05.2007…

M/S Queen'S Educational Society vs. Commr.of Income Tax

C.A. No.-005167-005167 - 2008Supreme Court16 Mar 2015

Bench: The Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital, May Be Gleaned From The Facts Of One Of Them, Namely, The Queen’S Educational Society Case. The Appellant Filed Its Return For Assessment Years 2000-2001 & 2001-2002 Showing A Net Surplus Of Rs.6,58,862/- & Rs.7,82,632/- Respectively. Since The Appellant Was Established With The Sole 2

Section 10Section 10(22)Section 260A

…to be one existing solely for educational purposes. In other words, existence of surplus from the activity will not mean absence of educational purpose (see judgment of this Court in Aditanar Educational Institutionv. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 346 : (1997) 224 ITR 310] ). The test is—the nature of activity. If the activity like running a printing press takes place it is not educational. But whether the income/profit has been applied for non-educational purpose has to be decided only at the end of the financial year. 32. We shall now consider the effect of insertion of provisos to S…

M/S Queen'S Educational Society vs. Commr.of Income Tax

C.A. No.-005167-005167 - 2008Supreme Court16 Mar 2015

Bench: The Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital, May Be Gleaned From The Facts Of One Of Them, Namely, The Queen’S Educational Society Case. The Appellant Filed Its Return For Assessment Years 2000-2001 & 2001-2002 Showing A Net Surplus Of Rs.6,58,862/- & Rs.7,82,632/- Respectively. Since The Appellant Was Established With The Sole 2

Section 10Section 10(22)Section 260A

…to be one existing solely for educational purposes. In other words, existence of surplus from the activity will not mean absence of educational purpose (see judgment of this Court in Aditanar Educational Institutionv. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 346 : (1997) 224 ITR 310] ). The test is—the nature of activity. If the activity like running a printing press takes place it is not educational. But whether the income/profit has been applied for non-educational purpose has to be decided only at the end of the financial year. 32. We shall now consider the effect of insertion of provisos to S…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sumi Motherson Innovative Engineering Ltd

ITA/863/2009HC Delhi08 Oct 2010

Bench: We Reproduce The Exact Questions, Which Were Formulated While Admitting The Appeal, We

Section 115JSection 2Section 210

…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 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kasturi, 237 ITR 24(SC). So long as the provision is free from ambiguity, there is no need to draw an analogy (see Rajasthan SEB Vs. DCIT, 200 ITR 434). The legal position is beautifully summed up by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India (P) Ltd. in the following words: “2. At the cost of some repetitio…