CIT v. Motors & General Stores

66 ITR 692Supreme Court of India1967#1713 most cited

What is CIT v. Motors & General Stores authority for?

Income tax authorities cannot deduce the nature of a document from purported intention, go behind the document, consider the substance over form, or rewrite it merely to suit the revenue's purpose.

66

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Motors & General Stores · 66 ITR 692 · income tax authorities powers · going behind documents · substance over form · rewriting documents · nature of document · purported intention · Revenue's purpose · documentary evidence interpretation · Section 143(3) · Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Motors & General Stores

Il & Fs Transportation Networks Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Range - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4177/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodil & Fs Transportation Networks Asstt. Commissioner Of Limited, The Il & Fs Financial Income-Tax, Range -14(2)(1), Center, Plot No.C-22, Room No. Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. 460, 4Th Floor, G Block, Bandra- Road, Marine Lines, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan – Aabcc5460A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit -14(2)(1), M/S Il & Fs Transportation Network 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., Il & Fs Financial Centre, 8Th Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Floor, C-22, G Block, B.K.C. Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…early showing an intention to lay a burden on him. The subject cannot be taxed unless he comes within the letter of the law and the argument that he falls within the spirit of the law cannot be availed of by the department. [See CIT vs Motors & General Stores 66 ITR 692 (SC)]. 20. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied, into the provisions which has not been provided by the legislature [See CIT Vs Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403 ]. One…