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

Expeditors International of Washington Inc., Usa vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

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

ITA 1904/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

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…

Bachhraj & Company Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the same terms

ITA 7349/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.7348 & 7349/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Bachhraj & Company The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bajaj Bhawan, Room No. 607, Aayakar 226, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aaacb5589N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.R Revenue By : Shri Kprr Murty, D.R Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murty, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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…

Bachhraj & Company Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the same terms

ITA 7348/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.7348 & 7349/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Bachhraj & Company The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bajaj Bhawan, Room No. 607, Aayakar 226, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aaacb5589N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.R Revenue By : Shri Kprr Murty, D.R Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murty, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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…

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “I-2”, New Delhi

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Shrivastava, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

…ere is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, 77 nothing is to be implied, into the provisions which has not been provided by the legislature [See CIT v. Radhe Developers [2012] 17 taxmann.com 156/204 Taxman 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 [See Goodyear v. State of Haryana [1991] 188 ITR 402(SC)]. 21. There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exempt…

Ashok Kirtanlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Add. CIT CC-22 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5842/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balalganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ashok Kirtanlal Shah Addl. Cit-Range 19(1) (Presently, Addl, Circle 22(1) 401, 4Th Floor, Anand House, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug, 13Th Road, Off. Linking Road, Mumbai 400 012 Khar West, Mumbai – 400 052

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2481/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR
Section 80I

…oper:- (i) ACIT vs Paras Buildcall Pvt Ltd: 57 taxmann.com 112 (Del-Trib) [refer page 58 of caselaw Paperbook]; (ii) B.T.Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction Pvt Ltd vs ACIT: 126 TTJ 577 (Mum) [refer page 70 of caselaw Paperbook]; (iii) CIT v. Radhe Developers: 341 ITR 403 (Guj HC) [refer page 118 of caselaw Paperbook] (iv) Sugam Construction Pvt Ltd vs ITO: 56 SOT 45 (Ahd ITAT)(URO) [refer page 133 of caselaw Paperbook] CO Nos.221 & 222/Del/2011 19. So far as the stand of the AO that the booking application forms of flats were addressed to SICCL and not to the assessee and that the assessee has authorized SICCL to…

M/S Novozymes South Asia Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 895/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.894/Bang/2018 Assessment Year:2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…. 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 [2012] 17 taxmann.com 156/204 Taxman 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 [See Goodyear v. State of Haryana [1991] 188 ITR 402(SC)]. 21. There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exempt…

M/S Novozymes South Asia Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 894/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.894/Bang/2018 Assessment Year:2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…. 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 [2012] 17 taxmann.com 156/204 Taxman 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 [See Goodyear v. State of Haryana [1991] 188 ITR 402(SC)]. 21. There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exempt…

The Sarswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 1 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6609/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Neehar Pandey, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…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…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4785/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.4784 & 4785/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 98, Ajanta House, Vs. Income-Tax-Central Circle 6(2),19Th Floor, Air India Govt. Industrial Area, Hindustan Naka, Building, Nariman Point, Charkop,Kandivli (West), Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 067. Pan No. Aaaca5579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT D.R
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…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…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4784/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.4784 & 4785/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 98, Ajanta House, Vs. Income-Tax-Central Circle 6(2),19Th Floor, Air India Govt. Industrial Area, Hindustan Naka, Building, Nariman Point, Charkop,Kandivli (West), Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 067. Pan No. Aaaca5579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT D.R
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…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…

Bachhraj Factories Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3986/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 14A

…. 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 [2012] 17 taxmann.com 156/204 Taxman 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 [See Goodyear v. State of Haryana [1991] 188 ITR 402(SC)]. 21. There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exempt…

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

…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…

M/S. Bafna Jangda Construction, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1052/PUN/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1052/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Bafna Jangda Construction, C- 314, Business Court, Mukund Nagar, Pune-411037. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfb6141B बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward- 11(4), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri S. N. Puranik Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Pune (‘The Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.01.2011 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Lower Authority Has Erred Both On Facts & On Law In Rejecting Appellant’S Claim U/S 80Ib(10). Same May Please Be Allowed. 2. Lower Authority Has Erred In Excluding The Land Area Of 1,508.49 Sq.Mtrs. For Road Widening. As Total Size Of Plot Of Land Of The Project Is 4,722.45 Sq. Mtrs. As Such More Than One Acre. Hence Appellant Be Declared Eligible For Deduction U/S 80Ib(10). 3. A) Assessee Firm Denies Its Liability To Interest U/S 234B.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 80I

…re. It is settled proposition of law that the eligibility conditions of section 80IB(10) of the Act does not prescribe that a developer of the land i.e. need not be the owner of the land. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers, 341 ITR 403 clearly held that for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, it is not necessary that the assessee should be owner of the land. It would suffice if the residential project is undertaken on an area of plot of land of one acre or more. It is neither for the Municipal Corporation nor for the Assessing Authority to look into the t…

ITO Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai vs. Anjlali Foundations, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 722/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Chandrababu. Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 80Section 80I

…the local authority subject to certain conditions. In this regard, let us examine the issue on the basis of case laws relied on by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) as under : 6.1 In the case of CIT vs Radhe Developers (and connected appeals) reported in 341 ITR 403 (Guj) , a decision with which the Jurisdictional High Court was in respectful agreement with the law declared by it, the essential facts are that the assessees had entered into development agreements with land owners, under these agreements the assessees agreed to develop the land belonging to the land owner on certain terms and conditions. On…

The ITO, Ward-1(3)(9), Surat vs. Vastushilp Corporation, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1528/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1528/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2003-04 The Income Tax Officer, Vs Vastushilp Corporation Ward-1(3)(9), Surat . F/14, Jay Complex, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. [Pan: Aacfv 3234 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Samir Shah – Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…ruction, engaged architect, book seller flats, collected revenue, got clearance certificate from authorities concerned , all risk and rewards with the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also held that decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Radhe Developers in 341 ITR 403 is squarely applicable on the case of the assessee. Thus, aggrieved by the 6 ITO, Ward-1(3)(9), Surat Vs. M/s.Vastushilp Corporation ITA No.1528/AHD/2016 for A.Y.2003-04 order of ld.CIT(A), the Revenue has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 9. We have heard submission of ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and Authorise…

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1210/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (D.R)
Section 80J

…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 45 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 re…

Mufg Bank Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle-2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7895/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shr Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 44C

…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…

Msm Discovery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodmsm Discovery Private Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Interface Building No. 7, Tax-12(3)(2) 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Room No. 147B, 1St Floor, Vs. Malad (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai- 400 064 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aagcs4253E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…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…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 609/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

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 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…