Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

206 ITR 495High Court1994#7318 most cited

What is Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Where a general provision and a special provision conflict, the special provision prevails. A court may decline to answer a reference if the appellant fails to appear or prepare the necessary documents for the hearing.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 206 ITR 495 · HC · 1994 · generalia specialibus non derogant · special provision prevails over general · reference unanswered · appellant non-appearance · failure to prepare paper books

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 10(38)Section 129Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 68opportunity of being heardpersonsection 143(3)indiatotal incomedocument

Judgments citing Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6203/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…the present issue is expressed in the maxim "generalia specialibus non derogant", meaning where there is a conflict between a general or special provision, the latter shall prevail. This proposition has been upheld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the sa…

Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6202/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…the present issue is expressed in the maxim "generalia specialibus non derogant", meaning where there is a conflict between a general or special provision, the latter shall prevail. This proposition has been upheld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the sa…

Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6201/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…the present issue is expressed in the maxim "generalia specialibus non derogant", meaning where there is a conflict between a general or special provision, the latter shall prevail. This proposition has been upheld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the sa…

Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6200/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…the present issue is expressed in the maxim "generalia specialibus non derogant", meaning where there is a conflict between a general or special provision, the latter shall prevail. This proposition has been upheld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the sa…

Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6199/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2014-15
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…the present issue is expressed in the maxim "generalia specialibus non derogant", meaning where there is a conflict between a general or special provision, the latter shall prevail. This proposition has been upheld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the sa…

Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6198/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2012-13
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…the present issue is expressed in the maxim "generalia specialibus non derogant", meaning where there is a conflict between a general or special provision, the latter shall prevail. This proposition has been upheld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the sa…

Kashyap Kaniyalal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6197/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…the present issue is expressed in the maxim "generalia specialibus non derogant", meaning where there is a conflict between a general or special provision, the latter shall prevail. This proposition has been upheld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the sa…

Subhash Murarka, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 176/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.176/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Subhash Murarka C-1/85/186-R7, Swarnabhoomi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aeqpm4578P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)

…t the hearing or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” 4.4 Similarly, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Now Diwan Oil MV CIT (2008) 206 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered, since the appellant remained absent and there was no assistance from the appellant. 4.5 In the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya reported at 118 ITR 461, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that “………..appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it……..” 4.6 The decision of the Ho…

Kashyap K. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 640/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, Ld
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…o the present issue is expressed in the maxim "generaliaspecialibus non derogant", meaning where there is a conflict between a general or special provision, the latter shall prevail. This proposition has been upheld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the sa…

Mr Nilesh Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 612/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar/SatishFor Respondent: Shri Murli Mohan
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM, & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT CC - 4(1) Mumbai Mr. Nilesh Bharani Air India Building, Nariman 5, Sharda Sadan S.G. बिधम/ Point, Mumbai 400021 Marg, Dadar(E), Mumbai- Vs. 400014 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AABPB4581G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Vinod Kumar/Satish Gupta प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Murli Mohan सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.12.2022 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date of…

Rupal Kashyap Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 21 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1235/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1235/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito, Ward 21(3)(1), Rupal Kahyap Mehta Income Tax Office, 26/27, A Wing, Ahuja Towers, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Dr. Raja Bhau Desai Road, Vs. Ss Roa Marg, Parel, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 012 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Agrpm5338E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 04.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, LdFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…o the present issue is expressed in the maxim "generaliaspecialibus non derogant", meaning where there is a conflict between a general or special provision, the latter shall prevail. This proposition has been upheld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the sa…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2248/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…gard, reliance was placed on the decision of CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons[1966] 60 ITR 392 (SC) and Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Surtax [1994] 74 Taxman 615/210 ITR 485 (Bom.) and Forbes Forbes Compbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 74 Taxman 268/206 ITR 495 (Bom.). Thus, as per him, the Assessing Officer erred in applying Section 194B of the Act, which is a general provision applicable to 'card game or other game of any sort', which would not cover stake money on horse races; and, for the latter income, Section 194BB of the Act is the specific provision. It was further brought to our notice that eve…

Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1849/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…gard, reliance was placed on the decision of CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons[1966] 60 ITR 392 (SC) and Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Surtax [1994] 74 Taxman 615/210 ITR 485 (Bom.) and Forbes Forbes Compbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 74 Taxman 268/206 ITR 495 (Bom.). Thus, as per him, the Assessing Officer erred in applying Section 194B of the Act, which is a general provision applicable to 'card game or other game of any sort', which would not cover stake money on horse races; and, for the latter income, Section 194BB of the Act is the specific provision. It was further brought to our notice that eve…

Bangalore Truf Club Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2012-

ITA 1848/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 194BSection 201fSection 234BSection 234CSection 40

…gard, reliance was placed on the decision of CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons[1966] 60 ITR 392 (SC) and Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Surtax [1994] 74 Taxman 615/210 ITR 485 (Bom.) and Forbes Forbes Compbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 74 Taxman 268/206 ITR 495 (Bom.). Thus, as per him, the Assessing Officer erred in applying Section 194B of the Act, which is a general provision applicable to 'card game or other game of any sort', which would not cover stake money on horse races; and, for the latter income, Section 194BB of the Act is the specific provision. It was further brought to our notice that eve…

DCIT (TDS) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Cma Cgm Global India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2361/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dcit (Tds)-1(1) M/S. Cma Cgm Global India Room No. 802, K.G. Mittal Private Limited Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. India Bulls Finance Center Vs. Charni Road, Mumbai-0002 Tower-3, 8Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Rd (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaccc2219E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.K. PodarFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Tiwari
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…he country including the Hon’ble apex Court in Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2005) 198 CTR (SC) 313 : (2005) 278 ITR 546 (SC) and that of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 119 CTR (Bom) 319 : (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). Coming back to the facts of the present case we find that the payments made to NSICT are straightway covered under Expln. III(c) below s. 194C(2). This being a specific provision encompassing the payment of carriage, the provisions of s. 194J, which are general in the context of not specifically defining the meaning of ‘technical services’…