Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 Supp (4) SCR 35. State of Jharkhand v Ambay Cements

Shri Dharmendra Hirubhai Patel, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangluru, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.139/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Dharmendra Hirubhai Patel, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, Motawada Steet, At & Po. Hazira, Bangluru. Tal: Choryasi, Surat – 394270. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amhpp6575A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deven Kapadia, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/01/2023 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

…e with the same must result in cancelling the concession made in favour of the grantee, the respondent herein.” 20 See for e.g., Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 Supp (4) SCR 35. 21 State of Jharkhand v Ambay Cements, (2005) 1 SCC 368. 30 This was also reaffirmed in a number of judgments, such as Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd.22 50. The Constitution Bench, in Commissioner. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. 23 endorsed as following: “24. In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the Court has to apply strict rule of interpretation. The penal sta…

Hotel Miramar, Daman vs. Assistnt Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.129/Srt/2021 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hotel Miramar, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Devka Beach, Nani Daman, Vapi. Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (U.T). (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfh5561Q Assessee By Shri Kaushani Shah Proxy Ca For Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short ‘The Nfac’], Delhi, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer, Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 15.04.2019. 2. At The Outset, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Fairly Agreed That The Issue In This Appeal Pertains To Employees’ Contribution To Provident Fund & Esic, Which Is Squarely Covered Against The Assessee By The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., In Civil Application No.2833 Of 2016, Dated 12.10.2022. 3. On The Other Hand, The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. Dr) For The Revenue Also Agreed That The Present Assessee’S Appeal Is Covered Against The Ita 129/Srt/2021/Ay.2017-18 Hotel Miramar

…e with the same must result in cancelling the concession made in favour of the grantee, the respondent herein.” 20 See for e.g., Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 Supp (4) SCR 35. 21 State of Jharkhand v Ambay Cements, (2005) 1 SCC 368. 30 This was also reaffirmed in a number of judgments, such as Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd.22 50. The Constitution Bench, in Commissioner. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. 23 endorsed as following: ITA 129/SRT/2021/AY.2017-18 Hotel Miramar “24. In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the Court has to apply…

M/S. Rajputana Stainless Ltd., Panchmahal vs. The Principal CIT, (Central), Surat at Vadodara, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.114/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rajputana Stainless Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of 213, Madhvas, Halol Kalol Road, Income Tax (Central), Surat At Vs. Kalol, Panchmahal-389330 Vadod "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacr 9333 G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

…e with the same must result in cancelling the concession made in favour of the grantee, the respondent herein.” 20 See for e.g., Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 Supp (4) SCR 35. 21 State of Jharkhand v Ambay Cements, (2005) 1 SCC 368. 30 This was also reaffirmed in a number of judgments, such as Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd.22 50. The Constitution Bench, in Commissioner. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. 23 endorsed as following: “24. In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the Court has to apply strict rule of interpretation. The penal sta…

Royal Furnisher, Jammu vs. Assesing Officer Ward- 2 (2), Jammu

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

…nd that there is no room for equitable considerations. 49. That deductions are to be granted only when the conditions which govern them are strictly complied with. This has been laid down in State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cement 2005 taxmann.com 1352 (SC)/[2005] 1 SCC 368 as follows: "23…. In our view, the provisions of exemption clause should be strictly construed and if the condition under which the exemption was granted stood changed on account of any subsequent event the exemption would not operate. 24. In our view, an exception or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is…

Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pcit-2, A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamcs4421L

…e with the same must result in cancelling the concession made in favour of the grantee, the respondent herein.” 20 See for e.g., Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 Supp (4) SCR 35. 21 State of Jharkhand v Ambay Cements, (2005) 1 SCC 368. 30 This was also reaffirmed in a number of judgments, such as Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd.22 50. The Constitution Bench, in Commissioner. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. 23 endorsed as following: “24. In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the Court has to apply strict rule of interpretation. The penal sta…

Vinod Kumar Tandon, Allahabad vs. DCIT(CPC), Begaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

…nd that there is no room for equitable considerations. 49. That deductions are to be granted only when the conditions which govern them are strictly complied with. This has been laid down in State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cement 2005 taxmann.com 1352 (SC)/[2005] 1 SCC 368 as follows: "23…. In our view, the provisions of exemption clause should be strictly construed and if the condition under which the exemption was granted stood changed on account of any subsequent event the exemption would not operate. 24. In our view, an exception or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is…

Checkmate Services P Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…the same must result in cancelling the concession made in favour of the grantee, the respondent herein.” 20 See for e.g., Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 Supp (4) SCR 35. 21 State of Jharkhand v Ambay Cements, (2005) 1 SCC 368. 30 This was also reaffirmed in a number of judgments, such as Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd.22 50. The Constitution Bench, in Commissioner. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. 23 endorsed as following: “24. In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the Court has to apply strict rule of interpretati…

The Pr.Commissioner of vs. M/S Mahaveer Tuscan

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA I.T.A. NO.423/2017 BETWEEN 1. THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 C.R.BUILDINGS,QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(3),BANGALORE …APPELLANTS (BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) AND M/S MAHAVEER TUSCAN NO.9,MAHAVEER HOMES 24TH MAIN, 6TH PHASE J.P NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078 PAN :AANFM7688 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI A.SHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.LAVA, ADVOCATE) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Brigade Enterprises Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…exemption is available on complying with certain conditions, those conditions have to be strictly complied with. [See: ‘EAGLE FLASK INDUSTRIES LTD., VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE’, (2004) 7 SCC 377 AND ‘STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. ANBAY CEMENTS’, (2005) 1 SCC 368, ‘STATE OF BIHAR VS. KALYANPUR CEMENTS LTD.’, (2010) 3 SCC 274 and ‘DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), BANGALORE VS. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD.’, AIR 2017 SC 5660]. The constitution bench of the Supreme Court in DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY SUPRA has held that incentive provision is subjected to strict interpretation and until the…

The Commissioner of Income - Tax vs. M/S. Mahaveer Marvel

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…exemption is available on complying with certain conditions, those conditions have to be strictly complied with. [See: ‘EAGLE FLASK INDUSTRIES LTD., VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE’, (2004) 7 SCC 377 AND ‘STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. ANBAY CEMENTS’, (2005) 1 SCC 368, ‘STATE OF BIHAR VS. KALYANPUR CEMENTS LTD.’, (2010) 3 SCC 274 and ‘DEPUTY COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), BANGALORE VS. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD.’, AIR 2017 SC 5660]. The constitution bench of the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI VS. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY AND ORS. has held that incentive provision is s…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 11 (1) Bangalore vs. M/S Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in the same terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

…two different sets of circumstances.” 20. In State of Jharkhand versus Ambay Cements5, the question was whether exemption for newly set up industrial units was applicable to the assessee therein. The High Court having 4 (2011) 2 SCC 74 5 (2005) 1 SCC 368 24 allowed the benefit even though the assessee did not qualify for the same, this Court reversed the view of the High Court and held that the conditions for grant of exemption from tax are mandatory and in absence thereof exemption could not be granted. Distinguishing the judgments of this Court in Bajaj Tempo (supra), it was obs…

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Aster Infratek Pvt.Ltd

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

…said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself....” Reference has also made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ambay Cements & Anr., reported in (2005) 1 SCC 368, wherein it has been held at paragraph 26 as under: “....it is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly…