CIT v. S. Teja Singh

35 ITR 408Supreme Court of India1959#792 most cited

What is CIT v. S. Teja Singh authority for?

The Supreme Court holds that legislative intent must be ascertained by reading the statute as a whole, construing one provision with reference to others to ensure a consistent enactment. Courts must consider the entire statute and its setting, not just the specific clauses, even if the language used has some inexactitude.

129

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S. Teja Singh · 35 ITR 408 · statutory interpretation · legislative intent · reading statute as a whole · consistent construction · harmonious interpretation · Section 153 · Section 144C

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Teja Singh

Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 19(1), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 4421/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayrenew Wind Energy (Shivpur) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 138, Ansal Income Tax, Circle 19(1) Delhi Chambers, Bhikaji Cama Palace, Range Code-44, C. R. New Delhi Building, I. P. Estate, Pan: Aafcr4810H New Delhi Appellant Respondent Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited,138, Ansal Income Tax, Circle 19(1) Delhi Chambers, Bhikajicama Palace, Range Code-44, C. R. New Delhi Building, I. P. Estate, Pan: Aafcr4553H New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…ay be some inexactitude in the language used. (See Salmon v. Duncombe [(1886) 11 AC 627 : 55 LJPC 69 : 55 LT 446 (PC)] AC at p. 634, Curtis v. Stovin[(1889) 22 QBD 513 : 58 LJQB 174 : 60 LT 772 (CA)] referred to in S. Teja Singh case [AIR 1959 SC 352 : (1959) 35 ITR 408]). 18. The statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. 19. The court must ascertain the intention of the legislature by directing its attention not merely to the clauses to be construed Renew Wind Energ…

Renew Wind Energy (Shivpur) Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 19(1), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 4238/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayrenew Wind Energy (Shivpur) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 138, Ansal Income Tax, Circle 19(1) Delhi Chambers, Bhikaji Cama Palace, Range Code-44, C. R. New Delhi Building, I. P. Estate, Pan: Aafcr4810H New Delhi Appellant Respondent Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited,138, Ansal Income Tax, Circle 19(1) Delhi Chambers, Bhikajicama Palace, Range Code-44, C. R. New Delhi Building, I. P. Estate, Pan: Aafcr4553H New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…ay be some inexactitude in the language used. (See Salmon v. Duncombe [(1886) 11 AC 627 : 55 LJPC 69 : 55 LT 446 (PC)] AC at p. 634, Curtis v. Stovin[(1889) 22 QBD 513 : 58 LJQB 174 : 60 LT 772 (CA)] referred to in S. Teja Singh case [AIR 1959 SC 352 : (1959) 35 ITR 408]). 18. The statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. 19. The court must ascertain the intention of the legislature by directing its attention not merely to the clauses to be construed Renew Wind Energ…

Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 13(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3953/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaljohnson Matthey India P. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Luthra & Luthra Law Income Tax, Circle 13(2) Office India, 103, Ashoka Estate, Spm Civic Centre, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Johnson Matthey India P. Ltd. Vs National Faceless Appeal 5Th Floor, C/O Regus Business Centre, Income Tax Center, Gurgaon, Road, South Department West Delhi Pan: Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv, Ms. Radhika Sharma, Adv& Ms. Soumya Pandey, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…ay be some inexactitude in the language used. (See Salmon v. Duncombe [(1886) 11 AC 627 : 55 LJPC 69 : 55 LT 446 (PC)] AC at p. 634, Curtis v. Stovin[(1889) 22 QBD 513 : 58 LJQB 174 : 60 LT 772 (CA)] referred to in S. Teja Singh case [AIR 1959 SC 352 : (1959) 35 ITR 408]). 18. The statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other provisions Johnson Matthey India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. 19. The court must ascertain the intention of the legislature by directing its attention not merely to the…