CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel

3 SCC 550Supreme Court of India1971#2378 most cited

What is CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel authority for?

The definition of 'plant' for income tax purposes includes any apparatus used by a businessman for carrying on their business, excluding stock-in-trade, that is kept for permanent employment. Terms like 'plant' should be construed in their popular sense, as understood by people conversant with the subject matter.

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 1992 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel · Taj Mahal Hotel SC · definition of plant · meaning of plant · income tax plant · apparatus used in business · permanent employment in business · popular sense construction · interpretation of terms · depreciation plant

Also reported as

82 ITR 44

Judgments citing CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel

Shweta Chhawchharia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-12

ITAT/15/2020HC Calcutta21 Dec 2020

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Kolkata vs. Electrocast Sales India Ltd

ITAT/11/2020HC Calcutta18 Dec 2020

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/3/2020HC Telangana25 Aug 2020

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

Degustibus Hospitality P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 526/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Degustibus Hospitality Dcit-5(1), Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Baktawar Building, Near Sakharbhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd3674P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil A. Desai, ARFor Respondent: Mr. D.G. Pansari, DR
Section 143(3)

…which is eligible for 15%. Thus he confirmed the disallowance of Rs.45,66,996/- made by the AO. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee files a copy of the decision in CIT v. Konadia Cold Storage (1975) 100 ITR 155 (All), CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel (1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC), CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao (2000) 243 ITR 81 (SC), CIT v. Navodaya (2004) 271 ITR 173 (Ker) and DCIT v. Astra Idl Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 564 (Karn.). The Ld. counsel submits that in Kanodia Cold Storage (supra), it is held that building used in cold storage is plant and entitled to higher depreciation; in Taj Mahal Hotel (supra), it is held that…

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Bellary vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Circle, Hubli-Dharwad

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

ITA 2886/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappapji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 12ASection 133ASection 194ASection 197ASection 201Section 201(1)

…phrases occurring so as to not only mean and comprehend such things as they signify according to Page 15 of 19 their nature and import, but also things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. (see CIT versus Taj Mahal Hotel, (1971) 3 SCC 550). But, this may not always be the case and in certain cases, the expression "includes" has been construed as "equivalent to" and, therefore, given a narrower meaning (see South Gujarat Roofing Tiles Manufacturers Association versus State of Gujarat and Others AIR 1977 SC 90). Thus, the word "includes" can be used in the sense of the word "means". T…

Mahim Patran P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT -2, Agra

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 195/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 199(1)Section 205Section 263

…e cannot be read to mean that the board is empowered to disallow the credit of TDS by inserting rules. ITA Nos. 195 & 196/Agr/2015 15 In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taj Mahal Hotel [19711 82 ITR 44 (SO that "The Rules were meant only for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and they could not take away what was conferred by the Act or whittle down its effect. " (20) Rule 37BA mitigates the hardship faced by the assessee and not to create hardship. It is a beneficial provision mitigating the hardship of the assessee. (21) Fu…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…44 ITR 192. The learned CIT DR further relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of 52 taxmann.com 21 in brother but the toll road Co Ltd vs. the assistant Commissioner of income tax. He further relied upon the decision of CIT vs. that my local 82 ITR 44 of the honourable Supreme Court and 243 ITR 81. He further submitted that in Anand the theatre the honourable Supreme Court held that the building used for running a hotel or carrying on cinema theatre and not be held to be a plant. In case of Raj Malhotra, the honourable Supreme Court held that the building in which water was run was not the plant…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…44 ITR 192. The learned CIT DR further relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of 52 taxmann.com 21 in brother but the toll road Co Ltd vs. the assistant Commissioner of income tax. He further relied upon the decision of CIT vs. that my local 82 ITR 44 of the honourable Supreme Court and 243 ITR 81. He further submitted that in Anand the theatre the honourable Supreme Court held that the building used for running a hotel or carrying on cinema theatre and not be held to be a plant. In case of Raj Malhotra, the honourable Supreme Court held that the building in which water was run was not the plant…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…44 ITR 192. The learned CIT DR further relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of 52 taxmann.com 21 in brother but the toll road Co Ltd vs. the assistant Commissioner of income tax. He further relied upon the decision of CIT vs. that my local 82 ITR 44 of the honourable Supreme Court and 243 ITR 81. He further submitted that in Anand the theatre the honourable Supreme Court held that the building used for running a hotel or carrying on cinema theatre and not be held to be a plant. In case of Raj Malhotra, the honourable Supreme Court held that the building in which water was run was not the plant…

M/S Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…44 ITR 192. The learned CIT DR further relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of 52 taxmann.com 21 in brother but the toll road Co Ltd vs. the assistant Commissioner of income tax. He further relied upon the decision of CIT vs. that my local 82 ITR 44 of the honourable Supreme Court and 243 ITR 81. He further submitted that in Anand the theatre the honourable Supreme Court held that the building used for running a hotel or carrying on cinema theatre and not be held to be a plant. In case of Raj Malhotra, the honourable Supreme Court held that the building in which water was run was not the plant…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…44 ITR 192. The learned CIT DR further relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of 52 taxmann.com 21 in brother but the toll road Co Ltd vs. the assistant Commissioner of income tax. He further relied upon the decision of CIT vs. that my local 82 ITR 44 of the honourable Supreme Court and 243 ITR 81. He further submitted that in Anand the theatre the honourable Supreme Court held that the building used for running a hotel or carrying on cinema theatre and not be held to be a plant. In case of Raj Malhotra, the honourable Supreme Court held that the building in which water was run was not the plant…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…44 ITR 192. The learned CIT DR further relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of 52 taxmann.com 21 in brother but the toll road Co Ltd vs. the assistant Commissioner of income tax. He further relied upon the decision of CIT vs. that my local 82 ITR 44 of the honourable Supreme Court and 243 ITR 81. He further submitted that in Anand the theatre the honourable Supreme Court held that the building used for running a hotel or carrying on cinema theatre and not be held to be a plant. In case of Raj Malhotra, the honourable Supreme Court held that the building in which water was run was not the plant…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Futura Value Retail Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 6705/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit-9(3)(2), M/S. Future Value 418, 4Th Floor, Retail Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Knowledge House, V. Mumbai-400020 Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaecp3041P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Sushil Kumar Poddar (Dr) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 6705/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.08.2016, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16,Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Ita No. Cit(A)/ I.T.305/Dcit-9(3)(2)/2015-16, For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri. Sushil Kumar Poddar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 194JSection 40

…so as to not only mean and comprehend such things as they signify according to their nature and import, but also things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. (see CIT v. Taj Mahal 21 | P a g e I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016 Hotel [1971] 3 SCC 550). But, this may not always be the case and in certain cases, the expression "includes" has been construed as "equivalent to" and, therefore, given a narrower meaning (see South Gujarat Roofing Tiles Manufacturers Association v. State of Gujarat AIR 1977 SC 90). Thus, the word "includes" can be used in the sense of the word "means". The definition c…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Venus Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ground No. 9

ITA 2504/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Venus Industrial Corporation Pvt Circle-17(1), Room No. 221, Ltd, 2Nd Floor, Cr Building, New Delhi Flat No. 1, 2Nd Floor, Ram Pratap House, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan:Aaacv4691B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KC Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…Ld AO has confined himself to the Rules which gives 15% rate for the Electric Installations. Here he has grossly committed an error in not understanding that rules are made for implementing the Act. Their lordship in the case of CIT vs. Tajmahal Hotel (1971), 82 ITR 44 (SC), have very categorically laid down as under “The Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, are meant only for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and they cannot take away what is conferred by the Act or whittle down its effect”. In this case, the Hon‟ble court held that Sanitary and pipeline fittings which ACIT,Vs Venus Industrial Corp…

Sh. Gautam R Chadha, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5450/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Navin Chandra, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

…are plant and as such qualify for depreciation @ 25%. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the judgment in CIT vs. Express Resorts & Hotels Ltd. (supra) by following the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited as CIT vs. Taj Mahal Hotel – (1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC) and Anand Theatres – (2000) 244 ITR 192 held that electrical installations are to be regarded as plant and machinery for the purposes of depreciation in the scheme of section 32 of the Act. So, when electrical installations are treated as plant the depreciation has to be allowed @ 25% as per provisions contained u/s 32 of the Act. So, in thes…

Hcl Technologies Bpo Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5622/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Navin Chandra, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

…are plant and as such qualify for depreciation @ 25%. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the judgment in CIT vs. Express Resorts & Hotels Ltd. (supra) by following the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited as CIT vs. Taj Mahal Hotel – (1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC) and Anand Theatres – (2000) 244 ITR 192 held that electrical installations are to be regarded as plant and machinery for the purposes of depreciation in the scheme of section 32 of the Act. So, when electrical installations are treated as plant the depreciation has to be allowed @ 25% as per provisions contained u/s 32 of the Act. So, in thes…

Degustibus Hospitality P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 525/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Sunil A DesaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Janardhanan

…e.” 5. Against the above order, the assessee in appeal before the ITAT. 6. I have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. The learned Counsel of the assessee submitted a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [(1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC)], wherein vide order dated August 12, 1971, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “It cannot be denied that the business of a hotelier is carried on by adapting a building or premises in a suitable way to be used as a residential hotel where visitors come and stay and where there is arrangement for meals and other amenities are provided…

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 well-settled that rules must be interpreted in the light of the section under which it is made and no exercise of the rule-making power can affect or derogate from the full operative effect of the provisions of the statue.” (ii) CIT vs. Taj Mahal Hotel, 82 ITR 44(SC), wherein vide para-49 the Hon’b;e Court has observed as under: “It has been rightly observed that the Rules meant only for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and they could not take was what was conferred by the Act or whittle down its effect” (iii) M.C.T. Muttaiah Chettiar Family Trust vs. 4th ITO, 86 ITR 282(Mad) wherein at…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…n it has been held that electrical installations like cables, overhead cables, etc. are part and parcel of plant and machinery itself and are, therefore, entitled to benefit/depreciation/ allowances available to plant and machinery: (i) CIT v Tajmahal Hotel : 82 ITR 44 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Tribeni Tissues Ltd: 206 ITR 92 (Cal) (iii) CIT v. Indian Turpentine Ltd. : 75 ITR 533 (All.) (iv) CIT v. Jagadees Chandran :75 ITR 697 (Mad.) (v) CIT v. Tea Estate: 207 ITR 311 (Cal) Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Aggarwal Plasto Chem Pvt.Ltd

ITA/144/2016HC Delhi22 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 173Section 5(1)

…d Interim Resolution Professional v. Axis Bank58. 47. Applying this principle to Section 3(1) of the PMLA, the offence of money laundering cannot be restricted, as is envisaged by the “pre-includes” part of the sub-section, to directly or indirectly 51 (1971) 3 SCC 550 52 AIR 1953 SC 274 53 (1979) 3 SCC 54 54 (1987) 1 SCC 424 55 (2009) 4 SCC 94 56 (2014) 9 Scale 461 57 (2022) SCC Online SC 706 58 (2020) 8 SCC 401 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.03.2026 14:32:30 Signature Not Verified LPA 144/2016 Page 40 of 61 attempting to indulge, or knowingly assisting, or knowingly being a party, or being act…