CIT v. T.V. SundaramLyenger& Sons (P) Ltd.

101 ITR 764Supreme Court of India1975#9493 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. T.V. SundaramLyenger& Sons (P) Ltd.

SMT. PRITPAL KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), JALANDHAR

ITA 59/ASR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mohit Kumar Nigam, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 2Section 271F

…turn under s. 153A. He also pleaded that as held by the various Courts, the penalty provisions must be construed strictly. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (P) Ltd. 1976 CTR (SC) 25 : (1975) 101 ITR 764 (SC); (ii) Asstt. CIT vs. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. (2003) 184 CTR (SC) 193 : (2003) 263 ITR 550 (SC); (iii) Engineers Impex (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. D.D. Sharma (2000) 161 CTR (Del) 25 : (2000) 244 ITR 247 (Del). Further he also pleaded that if the penalty is levied for not filing the original return in time then also it cannot be levied after such a…

RCC LABORATORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1800/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 35

…o any interpretative process to unfold the legislative intent becomes impermissible. The supposed intention of the legislature cannot then be' appealed to whittle down the statutory language which is otherwise clear. In the case of CIT vs TV Sundaram Iyengar [101 ITR 764] (SC), the Apex Court observed that “..... if the language of the statue is clear and unambiguous, and if two interpretation are reasonably possible, it would be wrong to discard the plain meaning of the words used in order to meet a possible injustice”. Further, in the case of Keshavji Ravji & Co. Vs CIT [49 Taxman- 87] [SC], the Apex Curt obser…

SRI SUDHEER VALSALA SREEKUMARAN ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 393/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54ESection 54FSection 54F(4)

…in the statutory language, resort to any interpretative process to unfold the legislative intent becomes impermissible. ITA No.393 /Bang/2019 Page 7 of 17 18. Similarly, Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (P.) Ltd. 11975] 101 ITR 764 (SC) has held that if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the Court cannot discard the plain meaning, even if it leads to an injustice. 19. The appellant has relied on the judgment of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of FATIMA BAI (Karnataka). I have considered the same. The above judgments of Hon. Supreme Court…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-RANGE-1,, BILASPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,, BILASPUR

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3/BIL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

For Appellant: S/ShriAjitKorde, S.R. RaoFor Respondent: ShriR.K. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 220(2)

…आयकरअपीऱीयअधिकरणन्यायपीठरायपुरमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY,JM Sl. ITA No. Name of Appellant Name of Asst. Year No. Respondent 1-5 187/JAB/2008 South Eastern ACIT, Circle 1(1), 1998-99 188/JAB/2008 Coalfields Ltd., Bilaspur 1999-2000 189/JAB/2008 Seepat Road, 2000-01 190/JAB/2008 Bilaspur – 495006 2001-02 191/JAB/2008 2002-03 PAN: AADCS2066E 6 173/JAB/2008 South Eastern DCIT, Circle 1(1), 2004-05 Coalfields Ltd., Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur – 495006 PAN: AADCS2066E 7-8 174/JAB/2008 South Eastern Addl.CIT, Range…

JOINT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -I, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 21/BIL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

For Appellant: S/ShriAjitKorde, S.R. RaoFor Respondent: ShriR.K. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 220(2)

…आयकरअपीऱीयअधिकरणन्यायपीठरायपुरमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY,JM Sl. ITA No. Name of Appellant Name of Asst. Year No. Respondent 1-5 187/JAB/2008 South Eastern ACIT, Circle 1(1), 1998-99 188/JAB/2008 Coalfields Ltd., Bilaspur 1999-2000 189/JAB/2008 Seepat Road, 2000-01 190/JAB/2008 Bilaspur – 495006 2001-02 191/JAB/2008 2002-03 PAN: AADCS2066E 6 173/JAB/2008 South Eastern DCIT, Circle 1(1), 2004-05 Coalfields Ltd., Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur – 495006 PAN: AADCS2066E 7-8 174/JAB/2008 South Eastern Addl.CIT, Range…

RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1763/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…dinal Rule of Statutory Interpretation‘ is the bedrock principle for interpretation, especially for taxing and penal statutes. The principle is firmly enshrined in tax jurisprudence as outlined in the following cases: (a) CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyyengar [1975] 101 ITR 764 (SC) – If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the Court cannot discard the plain meaning, even if it leads to an injustice. (b) CIT vs. Elphinstone Spg. &Wvg. Mills Co Ltd. 40 ITR 142 (SC) and CIT vs. Motors & General Stores Ltd. 66 ITR 692 (SC) – No tax can be imposed on the subject without words in the Act clearly showing an i…

M/S RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1881/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: PendingITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…dinal Rule of Statutory Interpretation‘ is the bedrock principle for interpretation, especially for taxing and penal statutes. The principle is firmly enshrined in tax jurisprudence as outlined in the following cases: (a) CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyyengar [1975] 101 ITR 764 (SC) – If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the Court cannot discard the plain meaning, even if it leads to an injustice. (b) CIT vs. Elphinstone Spg. &Wvg. Mills Co Ltd. 40 ITR 142 (SC) and CIT vs. Motors & General Stores Ltd. 66 ITR 692 (SC) – No tax can be imposed on the subject without words in the Act clearly showing an i…

CONTILOE FILMS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDLL. CIT RG.16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 856/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Contiloe Films Pvt. Acit-16(1) Ltd. Mumbai Vs. 3Rd Floor, Arc Plaza, Behind Country Club Off Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 Pan No. Aaacc2680B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivaram, Ar Revenueby : Shri Suman Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2017

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, DR
Section 269T

…at penal statutes have to be construed strictly in the sense that if there is a reasonable interpretation which will avoid the penalty, that interpretation ought to be adopted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (P) Ltd., (1975) 101 ITR 764, 773-74 (SC) has held that penal provisions must be construed strictly. As the AO failed to find that assessee had availed of a ‘deposit’ or ‘loan’ from M/s Contiloe Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., we cancel the penalty of Rs. 40,50,000/- imposed by him u/s 269T r.w.s 271E. 7 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court o…

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)
Section 201Section 254Section 40

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl CIT, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, CR Building, IP Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi PAN:AAACB2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl CIT, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, CR Building, IP Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi PAN:AAACB2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv Ms. Deepashree Rao, CA Revenue by: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OS…

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…v. Ram Narain Agrawal [106 ITR 965-968 (All.)], Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay [AIR 1954 SC 496, at page 498], TMT Thangalakshmi v. ITO [205 ITR 176 (Mad.)], CIT v. A.K. Das [77 ITR 31, at page 52 (Cal.)], CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (P) Ltd. [101 ITR 764, at page 773 (SC)], Engineers Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. D.D. Sharma [244 ITR 247 (Del.)]. Every statutory provision for imposition of penalty has two distinct components: - (i) That which lays down the conditions for imposition of penalty. (ii) That which provides for computation of the quantum of penalty. Section 271(1)(c) a…

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…v. Ram Narain Agrawal [106 ITR 965-968 (All.)], Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay [AIR 1954 SC 496, at page 498], TMT Thangalakshmi v. ITO [205 ITR 176 (Mad.)], CIT v. A.K. Das [77 ITR 31, at page 52 (Cal.)], CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (P) Ltd. [101 ITR 764, at page 773 (SC)], Engineers Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. D.D. Sharma [244 ITR 247 (Del.)]. Every statutory provision for imposition of penalty has two distinct components: - (i) That which lays down the conditions for imposition of penalty. (ii) That which provides for computation of the quantum of penalty. Section 271(1)(c) a…