CIT v. Vadilal Lallubhai

86 ITR 2Supreme Court of India1972#4239 most cited

What is CIT v. Vadilal Lallubhai authority for?

Statutory provisions, particularly in taxing statutes, must be strictly construed. No words should be added to a statute, nor should new stipulations be read into it, beyond what is expressly prescribed.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vadilal Lallubhai · 1972 · SC · strict construction · taxing statutes · statutory interpretation · reading into statutes · statutory provisions

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Vadilal Lallubhai

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE ,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. THE NANDED SIKHGURUDWARA SACHKHAND HAZUR APCHALNAGAR SAHIB,, NANDED

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2119/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2119/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Exemption Circle, Vs. M/S. The Nanded Aurangabad. Sikhgurudwara Sachkhand Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib, Nanded-431601. Pan : Aabtt2452Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Date Of Hearing 26.05.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Aurangabad [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 06.06.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A), Has Erred In Allowing Exemption U/S 10(23C)(V) Of The Act, In The Given Facts Of The Case, Particularly The Assessee Failed To Furnish Audit Report In Form No. 10Bb U/S 10(23C)(V) R.W.R. 16Cc.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2119/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 ACIT, Exemption Circle, Vs. M/s. The Nanded Aurangabad. Sikhgurudwara Sachkhand Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib, Nanded-431601. PAN : AABTT2452Q Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri Sardar Singh Meena Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Date of hearing 26.05.2022 : Date of pronouncement : 09.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed agains…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 599/DEL/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 1994-95

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(3)Section 254

…statute. Vidarbha Irrigation Devs. Corpn. vs. ACIT [(2005) 278 ITR 521 (Bom)]. 46. It is not permissible to construe any provision of a statute, much less a taxing provision, by reading into it more words than its contains. CIT vs. Vadilal Lallubhai [(1972) 86 ITR 2 (SC)]. Literal construction means that there is no room for any intendment. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. Voltas Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat (2015) 12 STD 658 (SC) 47. Hence, we hold that the proviso to Clause (a) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 244A is applicable and has to be consi…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 468/DEL/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 1994-95

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(3)Section 254

…statute. Vidarbha Irrigation Devs. Corpn. vs. ACIT [(2005) 278 ITR 521 (Bom)]. 46. It is not permissible to construe any provision of a statute, much less a taxing provision, by reading into it more words than its contains. CIT vs. Vadilal Lallubhai [(1972) 86 ITR 2 (SC)]. Literal construction means that there is no room for any intendment. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. Voltas Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat (2015) 12 STD 658 (SC) 47. Hence, we hold that the proviso to Clause (a) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 244A is applicable and has to be consi…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2641/DEL/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 1999-00

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(3)Section 254

…statute. Vidarbha Irrigation Devs. Corpn. vs. ACIT [(2005) 278 ITR 521 (Bom)]. 46. It is not permissible to construe any provision of a statute, much less a taxing provision, by reading into it more words than its contains. CIT vs. Vadilal Lallubhai [(1972) 86 ITR 2 (SC)]. Literal construction means that there is no room for any intendment. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. Voltas Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat (2015) 12 STD 658 (SC) 47. Hence, we hold that the proviso to Clause (a) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 244A is applicable and has to be consi…

Showing 120 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Vadilal Lallubhai (86 ITR 2) — Cited in 28 Judgments | BharatTax