CIT v. Madho Prasad Jatia

105 ITR 179Supreme Court of India1976#6804 most cited

What is CIT v. Madho Prasad Jatia authority for?

Where a provision of a taxing statute is ambiguous and admits of two interpretations, the interpretation that is favourable to the assessee must be adopted.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Madho Prasad Jatia · 105 ITR 179 · SC · interpretation of taxing statute · ambiguous provisions · favourable to assessee · rule of interpretation

Judgments citing CIT v. Madho Prasad Jatia

M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt. Limited, Rourkela vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 65/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s" Where two views are expressed by different High Courts on interpretation of certain provisions the interpretation favours the assessee shall be adopted. Reference is made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of " CIT v. Madho Pd. Jatia [1976] 105 ITR 179 (SC), CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 and CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC)." (1). HUMBLE PRAYER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO HELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24/03/2014 AS NULL AND VOID: In view of above discussion including that of judicial precedents it is humbly prayed before the Tribunal to adjudic…

Idea Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle12(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly

ITA 2399/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmaidea Estate Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 22-A, Janpath, New Delhi Circle-12(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci3158E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(1)(x)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37

…nd alio wed as deduction from the "Income from house property" in the subsequent years. The similar view is taken in the case Ashok Kumar, HUF v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ITAT Delhi Bench [1998] 65ITD 352 (DELHI) and CIT v. Madho Pd. Jatia [1976] 105 ITR 179 (SC) (Copy Enclosed). 7. However, the ld CIT(A) while dealing with the issue without distinguishing the judgment relied by the assessee and the reasons for not treating the amount as unrealized rent. There has been no reasons recorded for giving finding that why this amount is not allowable expenses u/s 24(1)(x) of the Act as specifically claime…

ACIT Circle- 12(2), New Delhi vs. Interocean Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8355/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassistant Commissioner Of M/S Interocean Shipping (India) Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd. Circle-12(2), Delhi, Vs 552, Bank Colony, Room No.419-A, 4Th Floor, Ambedkar Nagar, Devil Village, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110062 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaaci0143F Revenue Assessee

Section 2Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32A

…f two reasonable constructions of taxing provision are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. This is well-accepted rule of construction recognized by this court in several of its decisions. (iii) CIT v. Madho Pd. Jatia 119761 105 ITR 179 (SC) held where ambiguous interpretation of statute - admitting two Interocean Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. views- views which is favourable to subject should be adopted. (iv) Petron Engg Construction (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT f 19891 175 SIR 523/[1988]41 Taxman 234 (SG) held that principle that when too Interpretations are possible to be made, the interp…

Carolina Food and Industries Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2625/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 32

…f Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it has been held that if the provisions are couched in language, which is not free from ambiguity and admits two interpretations, a view which is favourable to the assessee should be adopted:- (i) CIT –vs.- Madho Pd. Jatia (1976) 105 ITR 179 (SC); (ii) CIT –vs.- Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC); (iii) CIT –vs.- Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 236 (SC). Ld. Counsel finally prayed before the Bench that the appeal of the assessee may kindly be allowed after following the decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme…

Shri. Manjit Krishan Malhotra, Abohar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 40/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

…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. Nos. 39 & 40/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Street No. 3, Jain Nagri, Tax, Civil Station, Bathinda Abohar [PAN: ABOPM 0859N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Anil Puri, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 28.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 11.08.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, A.M.: These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the impu…

Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra, Abohar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Incme Tax, Bathinda

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 39/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

…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. Nos. 39 & 40/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Street No. 3, Jain Nagri, Tax, Civil Station, Bathinda Abohar [PAN: ABOPM 0859N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Anil Puri, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 28.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 11.08.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, A.M.: These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the impu…

Ttk Healthcare Tpa Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/303/2013HC Karnataka12 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 133ASection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.303 OF 2013 BETWEEN: TTK HEALTHCARE TPA PRIVATE LIMITED NO.2, H.B. COMPLEX 100FT. BTM RING ROAD BTM 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT BANGALORE-560068 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. GIRISH RAO. ... APPELLANT (BY Mr. T SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) TDS CIRCLE-18(2), 4TH FLOOR NO.59, HMT BHAVAN BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-560032. 2. T…

Sigfriede Infotech P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of the appeal

ITA 7545/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Sigfriede Infotech Pvt. Ito-10(3)(3) Ltd. (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Techstar Infotech (India) Pvt. Vs. M.K. Road, Ltd.) 156, Bhandup Village Mumbai-400020. Road, Next To Wmi Cranes Road, Bhandup, West Mumbai-400068. Pan: Aabct7637C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kushandwala-(Ar) Respondent By : Shri Sachchidanand Dube (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)-22 Mumbai, Dated 15Th Of October 2013 Which In Turn Arises From Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) On 12Th November

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…erred. Reference can be made to various judgments of the Apex Court : CIT v. Vegetable ITA No. 7445/Mum/2013-M/s Sigfriede Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Product Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192, CIT v. Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 236, CIT v. Madho Prasad Jatia [1976] 105 ITR 179, CIT v. J.K. Hosiery Factory [1986] 159 ITR 85, Smt. Shashi Gupta v. LIC of India [1995] 84 Comp. Cas. 436, therefore, following the same, it has to be held that mesne profit received for deprivation of use and occupation of property would be capital receipt not chargeable to tax. We hold accordingly. Consequently, the decision of the Special Ben…

Mesers P.D Sekhsaria Trading Company, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Petition of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 331/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 331/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Sa No. 03/Asr./2019 (In Ita No. 331/Asr./2018: Asstt. Year : 2014-15) M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Bathinda Dated 26.03.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.4,69,47,808/- Made

For Appellant: Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri. M. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 2Section 234ASection 43(5)Section 43(5)(e)

…erpretations a view which is favourable to the subject should be adopted. In fact such an interpretation is also in consonance with ordinary notions of equity and fairness would further fortify the court in adopting such a course, {reference from case: [1976] 105 ITR 179(SC) CIT v. Madho Pd. Jatia}. 43. To summarise, as on 1-4-2014 the Act only required that the transactions carried out on recognized association will be deemed as non-speculative and NCDEX fulfilled all conditions during the period when there were no rules prescribed as well as the period after they were prescribed clearly establishes ITA No. 3…

Shri Hareshkumar Becharbhai Patel, Patan vs. The Jt. C.I.T., Mehsana Range, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2996/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2996/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Hareshkumar Becharbhai Patel Jcit, 57/58, Triupati Market, Tax, Vs. Near Bagvadadarwaja, Patan. Patan.

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhavari, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 299S

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’SMC’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2996/AHD/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Hareshkumar Becharbhai Patel JCIT, 57/58, Triupati Market, Tax, Vs. Near BagvadaDarwaja, Patan. Patan. PAN: ALNPP0915F (Applicant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri Pritesh Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri Jayant Jhavari, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13/12/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 01/01/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:…

DCIT TDS 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Business Channels Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in both the years are allowed

ITA 7047/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…n two interpretations are possible to be made, the interpretation which is favourable to the assessee should be adopted. In support of that contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a few decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Madho Prasad Jatia (1976) 105 ITR 179 (SC); CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and CIT vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC) : .........The above principle of law is well-established and there is no doubt about that......." 19. Having noted the legal position as above, it is appropriate, for the sake of completeness, to note the exception to…

Seth Properties, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2991/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘ ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.2991 & 2992/Mum/2013 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s Seth Properties, Income Tax Officer-12(1)(3), Room No.208, Room No.134, बनाम/ EMCA House, 02nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 289 Shahid Bhagat Singh, M.K. Road, Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.ABIFS2476F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee…

M/S. Sanwaria Agroils Limited, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 620/IND/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 32

…if two reasonable constructions of taxing provision are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. This is well-accepted rule of construction recognized by this court in several of its decisions. iii) CIT v. Madho Pd. Jatia [1976] 105 ITR 179 (SC) held where ambiguous interpretation of statute – admitting two views- views which is favourable to subject should be adopted. iv) Petron Engineering Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. CBDT [1989] 175 ITR 523 (SC) held that principle that when two interpretations are possible to be made, the interpretation, which is favourable to the assessee, should…

M/S. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)
Section 201Section 254Section 40

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl CIT, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, CR Building, IP Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi PAN:AAACB2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl CIT, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, CR Building, IP Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi PAN:AAACB2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv Ms. Deepashree Rao, CA Revenue by: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OS…

M/S the Right Address Ltd., Kolkata vs. The Income Tax Officer, (TDS) Ward-59(4) (TDS), Kolkata Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 197(1)Section 201Section 201(1)

…must be accepted while construing the provisions of a taxing statute. Held "Even if two views are possible the view which is favourable to the assessee must be accepted while construing the provisions of a taxing statute. " >CIT vs. Madho Prasad Jatia (1976) 105 ITR 179 (SC) Interpretation of statutes-Ambiguous provisions-Admitting two interpretations-View which is favourable to subject should be adopted. "It is well-settled that there is no equity about tax. The provisions of a taxing statute are clear and unambiguous, full effect must be given to them irrespective of any consideration of equity. Where, howeve…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. Celestial Laboratories Limited

ITTA/303/2013HC Telangana17 Jul 2013
CIT v. Madho Prasad Jatia (105 ITR 179) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax