CIT v. Radhe Developers

341 ITR 403High Court2012#1000 most cited

What is CIT v. Radhe Developers authority for?

Ownership of land is not a prerequisite for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act. The focus should be on whether the assessee undertook the development and construction of the housing project.

108

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Radhe Developers · Section 80IB(10) · ownership of land · housing project · developer · construction · deduction · Gujarat High Court

Also reported as

17 Taxmann.com 156204 Taxmann 543

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153CSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 254Section 69

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(13)section 80ia(4)(i)section 80iabsection 8osection 80ib(10)section 80ia(4)deduction under section 80iainfrastructure facilitydeduction u/s 80iasection 80isection 80ibsection 80ia

Judgments citing CIT v. Radhe Developers

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2916/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2706/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1281/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2765/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2334/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3126/AHD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1966/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT., (OSD)Circle-5, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1385/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-5, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 442/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-5, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 441/AHD/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Addl.CIT., Range-5, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3254/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

The DCIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/AHD/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

The DCIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2489/AHD/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

M/S. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-5, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/AHD/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

Ramjee Concretes Pvt.Ltd., Mohali vs. ITO-Ward-6(3), Chandigarh

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA 205/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 205/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, The Ito, बनाम #1238.Sector 91, Ward 6(3), Mohali, Punjab Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aafcr9457E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…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 can only look fairly at the language used. No tax can be imposed by inference or analogy. It is also not permissible to construe a taxing statute by making assumptions and presumptions [See Goodyear Vs State of Haryana 188 ITR 402(SC)]. 21. There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exemption or reli…

Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 843/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 37Section 40A(2)Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

…here is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tan. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied, into the provisions which has not been provided by the legislature [See C,i'Iv. Radhe Developers L20l2J 17 ta:gnann.com 156/204 Ta,xman 543/341 ITR 403 (Guj.). One can only look fairly at the language used. No tax can be imposed by inference or analogy. It is also not permissible to construe a taxing statute by making assumptions and presumptions lSee Goodyear v. State of Haryana U99l] 188 ITR402(SC)1. i 21. There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exemp…

Cenduit (India) Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…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 v. Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403 ]. One can only look fairly at the language used. No tax can be imposed by inference or analogy. It is also not permissible to construe a taxing statute by making assumptions and presumptions [See Goodyear v. State of Haryana 188 ITR 402(SC)]. 21. There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exemption or relie…

Kalyani Steels Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

The appeal of the assesse is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1403/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kalyani Steels Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mundhwa, Vs. Income-Tax Circle-14, Pune – 411 036 Aaykarsadan, Bodhi Tower, 548/2B, Salisbury Park, Gultekdi, Pune – 411 037. Pan No. Aaack7315D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. M.G Jasnani, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…aid. 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 can only look fairly at the language used. No tax can be imposed by inference or analogy. It is also not permissible to construe a taxing statute by making assumptions and presumptions [See Goodyear Vs State of Haryana 188 ITR 402(SC)]. 21. There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exemption or reli…

Expeditors International of Washinton, Usa, Washington vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(2) Int.Tax., New Delhi

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

ITA 180/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…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 can only look fairly at the language used. No tax can be imposed by inference or analogy. It is also not permissible to construe a taxing statute by making assumptions and presumptions [See Goodyear Vs State of Haryana 188 ITR 402(SC)]. 21. There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exemption or relie…