What is Godfrey Philips India Ltd. v. State of U.P authority for?

The Supreme Court holds that the word 'including' in a taxing entry signifies that what follows is part of or contained within the broader category, and may enlarge the definition. It applied the principle of noscitur a sociis to interpret 'luxuries' in Entry 62 List II of the Constitution, meaning it should be understood in a sense analogous to the specific words grouped with it.

How many judgments cite Godfrey Philips India Ltd. v. State of U.P?

90 judgments on BharatTax cite Godfrey Philips India Ltd. v. State of U.P (2 SCC 515), spanning 1992 to 2022.

Godfrey Philips India Ltd. v. State of U.P (2 SCC 515)

HILLWOOD FURNITURE PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/8/2020HC Kerala13 Oct 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: REGIONAL SPORTS CENTREFor Respondent: STATE OF KERALA

…e incidence of tax under the KTL Act is on the person enjoying the luxury and not on the ‘proprietor’ who provides the luxury. 13. The reliance placed by the learned Government Pleader on the decisions in Godfrey Philips India Limited v. State of UP – [(2005) 2 SCC 515] and State of Karnataka & Ors v. Drive-in Enterprises – [(2001) 4 SCC 60] in support of his contention that the incidence of luxury tax is on the enjoyment of luxury and not on the providing of luxury is also misplaced. The said decisions considered the issue of legislative competence of the respective legislatures while imposing the levy…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CUTTACK vs. M/S.PATNAIK MINEERALS PVT.LTD.

ITA/98/2017HC Orissa09 Mar 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

…o. 2018/KER/40520] and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Express Hotels Private Ltd. v. State of Gujarat – [(1989) 3 SCC 677], State of Karnataka & Ors v. Drive-in Enterprises – [(2001) 4 SCC 60], Godfrey Phillips India Ltd v. State of UP – [(2005) 2 SCC 515] and State of WB & Ors. v. Purvi Communication Pvt. Ltd. - [(2005) 3 SCC 711] that the incidence of the levy under the KTL is on the enjoyment of the luxury and the person on whom the levy is imposed is that person who enjoys the luxury and that the provider of the luxury is merely the person who is liable to O.P.(TAX).NOS.9 & 23/2016, O.T.REV.N…

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE 16(1),,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 1775/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

…and accepted by the Supreme Court whenever the meaning of a word, which falls within a group of words, is unclear and the intention of the legislature is doubtful. In Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2005) 194 CTR (SC) 257 : (2005) 2 SCC 515, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was considering the meaning of the word 'Luxuries' as appearing in Entry 62 of the List II of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution which empowers the State legislature to make laws with respect to 'taxes on luxuries including taxes on entertainment, amusement, betting and gambling'. The Supreme Court was…

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,R.R.DIST vs. JCIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 327/HYD/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

…and accepted by the Supreme Court whenever the meaning of a word, which falls within a group of words, is unclear and the intention of the legislature is doubtful. In Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2005) 194 CTR (SC) 257 : (2005) 2 SCC 515, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was considering the meaning of the word 'Luxuries' as appearing in Entry 62 of the List II of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution which empowers the State legislature to make laws with respect to 'taxes on luxuries including taxes on entertainment, amusement, betting and gambling'. The Supreme Court was…

NUNHEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.,,R.R.DIST vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 290/HYD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

…and accepted by the Supreme Court whenever the meaning of a word, which falls within a group of words, is unclear and the intention of the legislature is doubtful. In Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2005) 194 CTR (SC) 257 : (2005) 2 SCC 515, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was considering the meaning of the word 'Luxuries' as appearing in Entry 62 of the List II of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution which empowers the State legislature to make laws with respect to 'taxes on luxuries including taxes on entertainment, amusement, betting and gambling'. The Supreme Court was…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S H.H. CEMENT PRODUCTS

WA/5798/2011HC Karnataka23 Mar 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 39(1)Section 4Section 59

…37(D) with regard to the labeling of the product which would tend to exaggerate the quality of the product. 21 (ii) In another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godfrey Philips India Ltd. vs. State of Utter Pradesh [(2005) 2 SCC 515]. In that case, what came up for consideration was Entry 62 of List II, which relates to the exclusive power of the State Legislature to make laws with reference to the ‘taxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling’. Quoting Maxwell on “Interpretation of Statutes”, with regard to the effect…