CIT v. Sirpur Paper Mills

237 ITR 41Supreme Court of India1999#4827 most cited

What is CIT v. Sirpur Paper Mills authority for?

The amplitude of a deduction permitted by a section cannot be cut down by imposing conditions that rewrite the section.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sirpur Paper Mills · section 36(1)(iv) · approved superannuation fund · deduction limit · permissible deduction · amplitude of deduction · condition not to curtail scope · tax deduction rules

Sections most often in play

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 12AASection 143(3)Section 145Section 263Section 36(1)(iv)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundapproved superannuation fundsection 11 exemptionsection 80j(6a)section 12a(b)section 10(22)approved gratuity fundsection 36(1)(v)section 139(4a)section 10(20)section 12a(a)section 12a(1)(b)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sirpur Paper Mills

DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Kolkata

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 503/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43D

…settled that the Rules, being a subordinate legislation cannot override the express mandate of the parent statutory provision. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Sirpur Paper Mills reported in 237 ITR 41 (SC). 3.3. Without prejudice to the above, it was submitted that Rule 6EA is practically difficult to be implemented, since the categories of advances prescribed therein do not exist anymore as the classification of advances have changed and RBI now follows the international norm of classification (viz./ standard, sub-standard, doubtful and loss…

Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4361/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…“It is true that the Tribunal’s powers in dealing with the appeals are of the widest amplitude and have, in some cases been held similar to, and identical with the powers of an appellate court under the Civil Procedure Code.” (vi) CIT vs. Sirpur Paper Mills, 237 ITR 41(SC), as per the head notes relevant observation of the Hon’ble Court is as follows. “The section states that the deduction shall be wholly allowed. It permits the Board to specify conditions but these conditions cannot have the effect of curtailing the scope of the deduction granted by the section. The amplitude of the deduction permitted by the s…

DCIT, (It), 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S the Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 496/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri R.N.Bajoria Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 43D

…settled that the Rules, being a subordinate legislation cannot override the express mandate of the parent statutory provision. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Sirpur Paper Mills reported in 237 ITR 41 (SC). 2.3. Without prejudice to the above, it was submitted that Rule 6EA is practically difficult to be implemented, since the categories of advances prescribed therein do not exist anymore as the classification of advances have changed and RBI now follows the international norm of classification (viz. standard, sub-standard, doubtful and loss a…

M/S Obulapuram Mining Company P. Ltd., Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K.Mathew, CIT-III
Section 263Section 92A

…determining such price. Thereafter, as provided in sub section (4) of sec. 92C, the AO may compute the total ITA No.545(B)/2012 income on the basis of the arm's length price so determined by him." ITA No.545(B)/2012 43. In the case of "Sirpur Paper Mills", 237 ITR 41 (SC), it has been held that section 119 of the Act permits the CBDT to specify conditions, but conditions cannot have the effect of curtailing the scope of the deduction granted by the section; that the amplitude of the deduction permitted by the section cannot be cut down under the guise of imposing a condition; that in fact, this is not a condit…