Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.K. Vaidya

224 ITR 186High Court1997#23734 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 17(2)(iii)Section 17(2)(vi)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 40A(5)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.K. Vaidya

Sharad Kumar, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Circle

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1381/CHNY/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1381/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Mr. Sharad Kumar, The Dcit, New No.6, Old No.7, Media Circle-1, Nawab Habibullah Avenue, Chennai. 3Rd Street, Chennai-6. [Pan: Aasps 2554 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. T.M.Suganthamala
Section 2(24)(iv)

…ed judgment could not have brushed aside the consideration of the Amending Act, 1984 and its subsequent repeal by the Finance Act, 1985 by terming them of no consequence. High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.K. Vaidya, (1997) 224 ITR 186 and the Calcutta High Court in the case of P. Krishna Murthy v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., (1997) 224 ITR 183 have correctly understood and applied the provisions of the Amendment Act, 1984 and that of Finance Act, 1985 while interpreting the provisions of Mr. Sharad Kumar :: 8 :: Section 17(2) and 40A(5) of the Act. As noted above, the…

Great Eastern Exports vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/267/2008HC Delhi29 Nov 2010

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…131 ITR 597 (SC)}. Further the Supreme Court affirmed in Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 that Circulars issued by CBDT are binding on the Department even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act. In CIT Vs. Vaidya (M.K.) 224 ITR 186 the Karnataka High Court held that Circulars issued by the CBDT are not only binding on the Income Tax Department but are also in the nature of contemporanea expositio furnishing legitimate aid in the construction of a provision. 28. Other counsels argued on almost similar lines. Mr. Anoop Sharma also highlighted the conflict between t…

M. Salgaocar & Bors. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Accordingly Civil Appeal No. 657 of 1994 is allowed and Civil Appeal Nos

C.A. No.-000657-000657 - 1994Supreme Court10 Apr 2000
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ETC
Section 17(2)Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 36Section 40ASection 40A(5)

…hat deletion of a sum of Rs. 90,640 made by the Income-tax Officer would be correct. But the matter has not rested there. Thereafter, two decisions have been rendered by this Court in P. Krishna Murthy v. CIT & Anotlier, (224 ITR 183) and CIT v. M.K. Vaidya, (224 ITR 186) in which interest free loan or loan at a concessional rate given to employee for building house is not a perquisite. Once it is held to be not a perquisite for purpose of Section 40-A(5), it becomes clear that the deduction will have to be granted in favour of the assessee, because in an earlier occasion in ITRC No. 20/1989 this Court proceeded…