CTT v. DSM Group of Industries

4 SCC 272Reported decision2005#4940 most cited

What is CTT v. DSM Group of Industries authority for?

When interpreting an exemption notification under a fiscal statute, the principle that an obscure provision should be construed in favour of the assessee does not apply. Instead, exemption notifications must be interpreted strictly, and the burden of proving their applicability rests solely on the assessee.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CTT v. DSM Group of Industries · exemption notification · strict interpretation · burden of proof · assessee's entitlement · fiscal statute · Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkand · favourable construction

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CTT v. DSM Group of Industries

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the solitary ground raised by the Revenue in the appeals are dismissed

ITA 146/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: PendingITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Rishi Educational A.C.I.T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaaar1952M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Esthen N Hangal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21/04/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Aop & Registered U/S 12A Of The I.T. Act Vide Proceedings Of The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) Hyderabad In F.No.Hqrs/I/15/12A/Dit(E) Dated 27.02.2003. The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The A.Y 2017-18 On 06.11.2017 Admitting Total Income Of Rs.Nil. M/S. Ravi Rishi Educational Society Is Run By Close Family Members Mr.N.Rajababu, Mr.Ramesh Babu, Mrs. N. Sulochana, Mrs. N. Yashoda, Mrs. N.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Esthen N Hangal, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…y Hyderabad regards the applicability thereof to the case of the assessee once it is found that the same is applicable, the same are required to be interpreted liberally. (See Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand [2005] 140 STC 284 (SC); [2005] 4 SCC 272; Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association [2005] 7 SCC 396 and CCE v. Hira Cement [2006] 2 JT 369 (SC). It is also trite law that an exemption is to be granted unless it is expressly taken away. (See Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority v. Union of India [2006] 283 ITR 97/158 Taxman 107 (SC)." 8. In view of the above, we do not…

ACIT, CIR-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JITENDRA SETH, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1420/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2012-13 Acit, Circle-32, Jitendra Seth बनाम 10B, Middleton Row, 87, Karnani Estate, 209, / 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-71 V/S. A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 017 [Pan No.Ajhs 9552 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenges Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.03.2016 Passed In Case No. 749/Cit(A)-9/Cir-32/2014-15/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Assessee’S Commission Paid Of ₹51,56,694/- As Well As Partly Restricting Section 54F Deduction Disallowance To ₹42,39,181/- Out Of ₹56,52,242/-; Respectively, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’ Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 54F

…es the same, the exemption notification should be construed liberally. [See ITA No.1420/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 ACIT Cir-32, Kol. Vs. Jitendra Seth Page 8 CTT v. DSM Group of Industries [(2005) 1 SCC 657] (SCC para 26); ITSCO Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand [(2005) 4 SCC 272] (SCC para 42- 45); State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. [(1996) 1 SCC 108]; Novopan India Ltd v. CCE & Customs [1994 Supp (3) SCC 606]; A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala [(2007) 2 SCC 725] and Reiz Electrocontrols (P) Ltd. v. CCE. [(2006) 6 SCC 213]” 4.11. In this case the deduction u/s. 54F it is required that the i…

Showing 120 of 24 · Page 1 of 2