CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd.

155 ITR 711Supreme Court of India1985#2437 most cited

What is CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Legal fictions and deeming provisions are created for definite purposes and must be limited strictly to that purpose, not extended beyond their legitimate field or the explicit mandate of the section. This principle requires strict interpretation of such provisions.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries · 155 ITR 711 · Supreme Court · legal fiction · deeming provision · strict interpretation · Section 50C · leasehold rights · scope of section · capital gains · full value of consideration

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 115BBESection 131Section 132A

Issues it is cited on

section 32(2)section 50c(1)interest on refundsection 115jasection 80hsection 35dsection 145acompulsory acquisitionsection 80hhcfull value of considerationsection 80hhinterest on securities

Judgments citing CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd.

The ITO, Alappuzha vs. M/S.Extraweave P. Ltd, Alappuzha

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

ITA 448/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 195(6)Section 40

…arried forward from previous years. Against this stand of the AO, the AR contents that as far as the issue is concerned, the principles have been clearly laid down by the Hon. Supreme Court. in the case of CIT Vs Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd. 155 ITR 711 (SC) wherein the Apex Court has observed that legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose and these must be limited to that purpose and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field. The court also held that there cannot be any modification/deviation from the basic and well recognised principle of commercial accountancy by the…

Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Range-1, Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1681/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR
Section 250(6)Section 92C

…of the Act and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Warehousing Corporation,104 ITR 1 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries Pvt. Ltd.,155 ITR 711 as also the decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of United Phosphours Ltd. vs. JCIT (2001) 73 TTJ 404 (Ahd), the AO reduced the claim for depreciation on the basis of his own findings in the AY 2001-02. 3. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, following his own decision for the AY 2003-04. 4. The assessee is now in ap…

DCIT, Cir-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ozone India Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2081/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT.D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

…to revenue income. It is well entrenched by the body of case laws that while giving effect to such legal fictions, all facts and circumstances thereto and inevitable corollaries thereof have to be assumed. In CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration (P) Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 711, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the legal fictions are only for a definite purpose and they are limited to the purpose for which they are created and should not be extended beyond the legitimate field. Thus, a deeming fiction ITA No. 2081/Ahd/18 with CO No.103/Ahd/19 (M/s. Ozone India Ltd.) A.Y. 2013-14 - 19 - cannot be stretched beyon…

The DCIT, (OSD)-1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Midvalley Healthcare Services Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 204/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT. D.R
Section 10BSection 80ISection 92C

…rovision. There cannot be any inference or intendment with respect to such provisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amarchand N. Shroff reported in 48 ITR 59 and in case of CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd. reported in 155 ITR 711 held that the provisions (deeming) or fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which these were enacted. 10.8 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. ACE Builders (P) Ltd. reported in 281 ITR 210 has also taken the same view. On perusal of the above judgments, it emerges that the deeming provisions should be literally follow…

M/S Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-18(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

…completed on the date of execution of the development agreement. It is a settled principle of law that a deeming fiction cannot be stretched beyond the purpose for which it was created. To quote the Supreme Court in CIT v Mother India Refrigeration Industries 155 ITR 711: “the legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose and these must be limited to that purpose and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field.” 34 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Limited. 3.67 The learned AR submits that as already discussed, the assessee in the instant case has not made any payment during the relevant previous…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3920/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit Vs. Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd. Circle – 15(1), 11/5B, First Floor, Pussa Road, C.R. Bldg., I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aaacr1437M (Applicant) (Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 329/Del/2011 (In Ita No. 3920/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2

…eliance on the additions reported inCIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd: 340 ITR 14 (Del), which was further upheld by the apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Madhur Housing and Development Company 401 ITR 152 (SC), and IT vs. MotherIndia Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd. 155 ITR 711. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ITO vs. MotherIndia Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd.: 155 ITR 711 also. 12. For proper appreciation of the contentions of the parties on this aspect, we deem it necessary to look into the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act which reads as under: . “2. Defini…

ACIT, Circle-3, Ranchi vs. Shri Sumit Ramsisaria, Ranchi

ITA 222/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH “E” COURT AT KOLKATA Before Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.222/Ran/2019 & Cross Objection No.12/Ran/2019 (a/o ITA No.222/Ran/2019) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner of Shri Sumit Ramsisaria बनाम Income-tax,Circle-3, Kantatoli Chowk, Purulia Room No. 302, 3rd Floor, Road, Ranchii-834001 V/s. Central Revenue Building [PAN No.AGSPR 9853 J] (Annexe), Main Road, Ranchi-834001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent/ "तया"ेपक / co-objector Shri R.K. Garodia, FCA आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri Inderjit…

M/S. Mistral Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1914/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

…depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number of years without any restriction. The following judicial pronouncements in CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 555 (SC), CIT Vs Mother India Refrigeration Inds (P) Ltd 155 ITR 711 (SC), CIT v Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd (1991) 191 ITR 0156 (Kar) explains the above principles. 9.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Yokogawa India Ltd [2017] 391 ITR 274 has held that deduction under section 10A should be computed and allowed while computing the income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of t…

M/S. Mistral Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1913/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

…depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number of years without any restriction. The following judicial pronouncements in CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 555 (SC), CIT Vs Mother India Refrigeration Inds (P) Ltd 155 ITR 711 (SC), CIT v Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd (1991) 191 ITR 0156 (Kar) explains the above principles. 9.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Yokogawa India Ltd [2017] 391 ITR 274 has held that deduction under section 10A should be computed and allowed while computing the income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of t…

M/S. Mistral Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1912/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

…depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number of years without any restriction. The following judicial pronouncements in CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 555 (SC), CIT Vs Mother India Refrigeration Inds (P) Ltd 155 ITR 711 (SC), CIT v Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd (1991) 191 ITR 0156 (Kar) explains the above principles. 9.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Yokogawa India Ltd [2017] 391 ITR 274 has held that deduction under section 10A should be computed and allowed while computing the income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of t…

M/S. Mistral Software Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1911/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

…depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number of years without any restriction. The following judicial pronouncements in CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 555 (SC), CIT Vs Mother India Refrigeration Inds (P) Ltd 155 ITR 711 (SC), CIT v Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd (1991) 191 ITR 0156 (Kar) explains the above principles. 9.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Yokogawa India Ltd [2017] 391 ITR 274 has held that deduction under section 10A should be computed and allowed while computing the income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of t…

Ritz Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 12(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1945/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48Section 50C

…s considered the scope of a deeming provision and came to hold that it cannot be extended beyond the object for which it is enacted. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd. [1985] 155 ITR 711/23 Taxman 8 by laying down that "legal fictions are created only for some definite purple and these must be limited to that purpose and should not be extended beyond their legitimate field". So the mandate of Section 50C of the Act it is noted extends only to a capital asset which is "land or building or both". Therefore, follows that only if a c…

Late Shri Prakashchandra Goyal, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.29/Ahd/2017/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Prakashchandra Goyal(L/H Of Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Late Shri Kapil Prakashchandra Ward-1(3)(4), Surat. Goyal), A-1002, Meghdhanush Apartment Sarelawadi, Ghoddod Road, Surat अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Vinod Goyal – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar – Sr.Dr 01.11.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat(In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 17.11.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14 Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(4), Surat(In Short “The Ao”) Dated 14.03.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act,1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(a)Section 50Section 50C

…right in lease hold property are not applicable as that section 50C applies only for transfer of land, building or both not for transfer of lease hold rights. The ld.Counsel relied in the case of CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1985] 155 ITR 711 (SC) and submitted that the provision of section 50C are applicable on transfer of land or building or both but it is not applicable in case of transfer of any tenancy or lease hold rights in the property. Section 50C is a deeming provision by a virtue of which a legal fiction has been created. It is a settled law that legal fiction cannot be ext…

DCIT - 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Automobile Products of India Ltd., Chennai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6197/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit-15(1)(1), M/S Automobile Products Of Room No.470, 4Th Floor, India Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 63-A, North Phase, Sidco Vs. M.K. Road, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Mumbai-400020 Chennai-600098 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aabca0725C

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 45Section 50CSection 6

…s considered the scope of a deeming provision and came to hold that it cannot be extended beyond the object for which it is enacted. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd. [1985] 155 ITR 711/ 23 Taxman 8 by laying down that "legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose and these must be limited to that purpose and should not be extended beyond their legitimate field". In CIT v. ACE Builders (P.) Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 210 /[2005] 144 Taxman 855 (Bom), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court considered the facts of a case in w…

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(5), Surat vs. M/S. Global Syntax, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2936/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C .M. Garg & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…books of accounts. Likewise, disallowance made for delayed payment of Employees’ EPF contribution of Rs.73,669/- towards late deposit of PF amount is concerned the CIT(A) relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. [1985] 155 ITR 711(SC) wherein it was held that legal fiction is created only for some definite purpose and they must be limited to that purpose and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field. Therefore, the CIT(A) observed that the ld.AO was thoroughly unjustified in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) further supported his view…

ITO 22(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Liladhar R. Tandel, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas Cross

ITA 959/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicil Member

For Appellant: Shri. Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Jenardhanan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…as considered the scope of a deeming provision and came to hold that it cannot be extended beyond the object for which it is enacted. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries P. Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 711 (SC) by laying down that "legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose and these must be limited to that purpose and should not be extended beyond their legitimate field". In CIT vs. Ace Builders P. Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 210 (Born), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court considered the facts of a case in which the assessee was a partner…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Xansa India Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3672/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Smt Suchitra Kamblesteria India Ltd. (Estwhile Vs Acit Xansa India Ltd.) Circle-18(1) Seaview Special Economic New Delhi Zone, Building 4, Plot No. 20 & (Respondent) 21, Sector-135, Gautam Budh Nagar Noida Aaacx0385L (Appellant) Dcit Vs Xansa India Ltd. Circle-18(1) (Now Known As Steria India Ltd.,) New Delhi C-2, Sector-1 (Appellant) Noida Aaacx0385L (Respondent)

Section 10(14)Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 195Section 40a

…DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Steria India Ltd. (Estwhile Vs ACIT Xansa India Ltd.) Circle-18(1) Seaview Special Economic New Delhi Zone, Building 4, Plot No. 20 & (RESPONDENT) 21, Sector-135, Gautam Budh Nagar Noida AAACX0385L (APPELLANT) DCIT Vs Xansa India Ltd. Circle-18(1) (Now known as Steria India Ltd.,) New Delhi C-2, Sector-1 (APPELLANT) Noida AAACX0385L (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Gaurav Garg, CA Respondent by Sh. T. M. Shivakumar, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 04.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement 09.12.2016 passed u/s 143…

Steria India Ltd. (Estwhile Xansa India Ltd.), Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3264/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Smt Suchitra Kamblesteria India Ltd. (Estwhile Vs Acit Xansa India Ltd.) Circle-18(1) Seaview Special Economic New Delhi Zone, Building 4, Plot No. 20 & (Respondent) 21, Sector-135, Gautam Budh Nagar Noida Aaacx0385L (Appellant) Dcit Vs Xansa India Ltd. Circle-18(1) (Now Known As Steria India Ltd.,) New Delhi C-2, Sector-1 (Appellant) Noida Aaacx0385L (Respondent)

Section 10(14)Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 195Section 40a

…DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Steria India Ltd. (Estwhile Vs ACIT Xansa India Ltd.) Circle-18(1) Seaview Special Economic New Delhi Zone, Building 4, Plot No. 20 & (RESPONDENT) 21, Sector-135, Gautam Budh Nagar Noida AAACX0385L (APPELLANT) DCIT Vs Xansa India Ltd. Circle-18(1) (Now known as Steria India Ltd.,) New Delhi C-2, Sector-1 (APPELLANT) Noida AAACX0385L (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Gaurav Garg, CA Respondent by Sh. T. M. Shivakumar, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 04.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement 09.12.2016 passed u/s 143…

M/S. A.T. Kearney India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 511/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Ray, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 80I

…what is expressly stated in such a provision. There can be no inference or intendment as regards such a provision. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Amarchand N. Shroff (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC) and CIT Vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries P. Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 711 (SC) considered the ambit of deeming provisions and held that the fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which these were enacted. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Ace Builders P. Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 210 (Bom.) has also taken similar view. On an appraisal of the above judgments, the position which emerges is that whenever a lega…

M/S. A.T. Kearney India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 510/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Ray, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 80I

…what is expressly stated in such a provision. There can be no inference or intendment as regards such a provision. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Amarchand N. Shroff (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC) and CIT Vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries P. Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 711 (SC) considered the ambit of deeming provisions and held that the fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which these were enacted. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Ace Builders P. Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 210 (Bom.) has also taken similar view. On an appraisal of the above judgments, the position which emerges is that whenever a lega…