CIT v. Vadilal Lallubhai

86 ITR 2Supreme Court of India1972#4234 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 366,339 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

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 11Section 143(3)Section 10Section 12Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)rule of consistencysection 5(2)section 2(24)share capital and share premiumsection 250(4)source of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorescapement of incomeborrowed satisfactionunexplained moneyadmission of additional evidence

Judgments citing CIT v. Vadilal Lallubhai

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2553/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…

Exotica Housing & Infrstructure Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 8(4), New Delhi

ITA 5188/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…on. Hence the deeming provision should be construed strictly and be confined and limited to the purpose for which they are created and should not be extended beyond their legitimate field as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vadilal Lalubhai in 86 ITR 2 and 181 ITR 1 (Kerala), CIT vs. P.V. John. (iv) In the case of CIT vs. Sarathy Mudaliar in 83 ITR 170, the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14.3.1. In the case of CIT vs. Sarathi Mudaliar in 83 ITR 170, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the provision of Section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (which is parimateria to Section 2(22)(e) of…

Pyramid Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2057/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2053/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAJCS4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2054/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Construction Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAHCS8522R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2055/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag…

Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2053/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAJCS4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2054/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Construction Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAHCS8522R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2055/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag…

Saamag Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2054/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2053/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAJCS4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2054/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Construction Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAHCS8522R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2055/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag…

Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2053/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2053/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAJCS4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2054/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Construction Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAHCS8522R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2055/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag…

Adarsh Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5096/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, & Nippun Mital, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153C

…id statute. Vidarbha Irrigation Dev. Corpn. v/s ACIT [(2005) 278 ITR 521 (Born)]. 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. ICAI vs. Price Waterhouse, (1997) 90 Compo Case 113, 140, 141 (SC) State of West Bengal vs. Scene Seven P. Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 3089, 3094 Harbajan Singh vs. Press Council of I…

Adarsh Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5095/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, & Nippun Mital, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153C

…id statute. Vidarbha Irrigation Dev. Corpn. v/s ACIT [(2005) 278 ITR 521 (Born)]. 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. ICAI vs. Price Waterhouse, (1997) 90 Compo Case 113, 140, 141 (SC) State of West Bengal vs. Scene Seven P. Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 3089, 3094 Harbajan Singh vs. Press Council of I…

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