Goodyear v. State of Haryana

188 ITR 402Supreme Court of India1991#1197 most cited

What is Goodyear v. State of Haryana authority for?

A reasonable construction of a taxing statute should be followed, and a literal construction should be avoided if it defeats the manifest purpose and object of the Act.

94

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana · 188 ITR 402 · reasonable construction · literal construction · taxing statute · manifest purpose and object · Income Tax Act

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 147 of the Income Tax ActSection 148 of the Income Tax ActSection 194CSection 234BSection 234B of the Income Tax ActSection 234CSection 234C of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

bright line testamp expenditurecomparable uncontrolled price methodsection 92(1)cost plus methodfunctional analysissection 80jjasection 80jjaasection 92fsection 92c(3)management feessection 55

Judgments citing Goodyear v. State of Haryana

M/S. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Gautam Buidh Nagar vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 953/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Lg L.G Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The A.C.I.T Vs. No.51, Udyog Vihar, Circle -3 Plot Surajpur Kasna Road Noida Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Pan No. Aaacl 1745Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] LG L.G Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The A.C.I.T Vs. No.51, Udyog Vihar, Circle -3 Plot Surajpur Kasna Road Noida Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, PAN No. AAACL 1745Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Sh. Ramit katiyal, Advocate Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate Respondent by Sh. H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 05.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 15.02.2019 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:…

Sri Markandeya Maharshi Padmashali Gurupeeta Maha Samsthana, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

ITA 277/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. K. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…is a precedent for laying down a proposition of allowability of expenditure for computation of income of a charitable institution which is denied benefit Under Section 11. Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1991) 188 ITR 402 (SC), as per head note, held as follows: "Precedent -- Authority only for what it decides - Not for what may remotely or even logically follows - Decision on question not argued cannot be treated as precedent." Thus, the judgment of Honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court (supra) does not help the case of the Revenue. 27. On other hand, learned auth…

Sri Markandeya Maharshi Padmashali Gurupeeta Maha Samsthana, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

ITA 274/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. K. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…is a precedent for laying down a proposition of allowability of expenditure for computation of income of a charitable institution which is denied benefit Under Section 11. Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1991) 188 ITR 402 (SC), as per head note, held as follows: "Precedent -- Authority only for what it decides - Not for what may remotely or even logically follows - Decision on question not argued cannot be treated as precedent." Thus, the judgment of Honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court (supra) does not help the case of the Revenue. 27. On other hand, learned auth…

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6253/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2008-09] L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Asstt. C.I.T A-27, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Circle - 3 Estate, Mathura Road Noida [U.P] New Delhi Pan : Aaacl 1745 Q [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 80J

…e draw support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 224 ITR 677 [SC]. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under: “In the case of Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (188 ITR 402) this court said that he rule of reasonable construction must be applied while construing a statute. Literal construction should be avoided if it defeats the manifest object and purpose of the Act. Therefore, in the well known words of Judge learned Hand, one cannot make a fortress out of the dictionary; and should remember that statutes have so…

M/S Hype Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Mohali vs. DCIT, C-6(1), Mohali

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 616/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…the decision to a later case,courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision.” 11. The Hon’ble apex court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd & Ors vs State of Haryana & Another and State of Maharashtra & Another reported in 188 ITR 402(1991) have held that a decision on a question that has not been argued cannot be treated as a precedent. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs K. Ramakrishnan (1993) 202 ITR 997 held that a precedent is an authority only for what it actually decides and not for what may remotely or even logically follow from it. Having said so we f…

DCIT, C-I, Ludhiana vs. M/S Kapsons Associates Investments (P) Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1434/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vipin Gupta, CA
Section 14Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, “बी” च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं डा. बी.आर.आर, कुमार, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1434/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The DCIT, M/s Kapsons Associates बनाम Circle-1, Investments (P) Limited, Ludhiana B-26, Focal Point, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACK7243A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Vipin Gupta,…

ACIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd., Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 470/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manoj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA
Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…he decision to a later case,courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision.” 11. The Hon’ble apex court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd & Ors vs State of Haryana & Another and State of Maharashtra & Another reported in 188 ITR 402(1991) have held that a decision on a question that has not been argued cannot be treated as a precedent. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs K. Ramakrishnan (1993) 202 ITR 997 held that a precedent is an authority only for what it actually decides and not for what may remotely or even logically follow from it. Having said so…

DCIT(E), Circle-2, Kolkata vs. M/S West Bengal Trade Promotion Org., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 156/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 147Section 148Section 25

…on. But for this proviso the ambit of section 43B become unduly wide bringing within its scope those payments, which were not intended to be prohibited from the category of permissible deductions. In the case of Goodyear India Ltd vs State of Haryana (1991) 188 ITR 402 , this court said that the rule of reasonable construction must be applied while construing a statute. Literal construction should be avoided if it defeats the manifest object and purpose of the Act. As observed by G.P.Singh in his Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 4th Edn., Page 291, “It is well settled that if a statute is curative or mer…

ACIT, Exemptions, Vijayawada vs. Sri Prakasha Educational Society, Tunii

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

ITA 467/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 133ASection 2(24)

…is a precedent for laying down a proposition of allowability of expenditure for computation of income of a charitable institution which is denied benefit Under Section 11. Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1991) 188 ITR 402 (SC), as per head note, held as follows: " Precedent -- Authority only for what it decides - Not for what may remotely or even logically follows - Decision on question not argued cannot be treated as precedent." Thus, the judgment of Honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court (supra) does not help the case of the Revenue. 27. On other hand, learned au…

ACIT, Vijayawada vs. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

ITA 465/VIZ/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 133ASection 2(24)

…is a precedent for laying down a proposition of allowability of expenditure for computation of income of a charitable institution which is denied benefit Under Section 11. Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1991) 188 ITR 402 (SC), as per head note, held as follows: " Precedent -- Authority only for what it decides - Not for what may remotely or even logically follows - Decision on question not argued cannot be treated as precedent." Thus, the judgment of Honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court (supra) does not help the case of the Revenue. 27. On other hand, learned au…

ACIT, (Exemptions), Exemptions Circle, Vijayawada vs. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

ITA 382/VIZ/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 133ASection 2(24)

…is a precedent for laying down a proposition of allowability of expenditure for computation of income of a charitable institution which is denied benefit Under Section 11. Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1991) 188 ITR 402 (SC), as per head note, held as follows: " Precedent -- Authority only for what it decides - Not for what may remotely or even logically follows - Decision on question not argued cannot be treated as precedent." Thus, the judgment of Honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court (supra) does not help the case of the Revenue. 27. On other hand, learned au…

M/S Horizon Builders & Developers, Amritsar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed

ITA 400/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryi.T.A Nos.399&400(Asr)/2015 Assessment Years: 2007-08&2009-10 Pan: Aaefh 5966J

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur (D.R)
Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

…find little merit in the assessee’s argument. To begin with, a precedent is an authority only for what it actually decides and not what may remotely or even logically follow from it, as clarified in Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another [1991] 188 ITR 402 (SC) (also refer: CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC); Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwala (P.) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 243 (Del.) (FB); Blue Star Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 514 (Bom)). It is the ratio of a judgment that is binding, and all that Hon'ble Court has laid down is that the conditions precedent for a sect…

M/S Horizon Builders & Developers, Amritsar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed

ITA 399/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryi.T.A Nos.399&400(Asr)/2015 Assessment Years: 2007-08&2009-10 Pan: Aaefh 5966J

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur (D.R)
Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

…find little merit in the assessee’s argument. To begin with, a precedent is an authority only for what it actually decides and not what may remotely or even logically follow from it, as clarified in Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another [1991] 188 ITR 402 (SC) (also refer: CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC); Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwala (P.) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 243 (Del.) (FB); Blue Star Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 514 (Bom)). It is the ratio of a judgment that is binding, and all that Hon'ble Court has laid down is that the conditions precedent for a sect…

Dy. C.I.T. 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd., Raipur

In the result, appeal filed for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 360/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 801ASection 80ISection 8Q

…rs : 2009-10, 2010-2011& 2011-12 case of the assessee. For this proposition, he relied various judicial decisions as under: a. Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Vs Collector of Customs (1993J 68ELT 3 CSC), b. Goodyear India Ltd. Vs State of Haryana (1991) 188 ITR 402 (SC), c. Wimco Seedlings Ltd. & State of Maharashtra Vs DCIT (2007) 107 ITD 267 (Del. ITAT), d. C1T Vs Hero Cycle Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR518 (P&H HC), e. ACIT Vs Eicher Ltd. (2006) 103 TTJ 369 (Del TAT). f. Dhanlakshmi Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (2007) 12 SOT 625 (Coch –ITAT) g. Birla Group Holdings Ltd. Vs DCIT (2007)13 SOT 642 (Mum-ITAT) h. Auchte] Products…

Dy. C.I.T. 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd., Raipur

In the result, appeal filed for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 359/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 801ASection 80ISection 8Q

…rs : 2009-10, 2010-2011& 2011-12 case of the assessee. For this proposition, he relied various judicial decisions as under: a. Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Vs Collector of Customs (1993J 68ELT 3 CSC), b. Goodyear India Ltd. Vs State of Haryana (1991) 188 ITR 402 (SC), c. Wimco Seedlings Ltd. & State of Maharashtra Vs DCIT (2007) 107 ITD 267 (Del. ITAT), d. C1T Vs Hero Cycle Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR518 (P&H HC), e. ACIT Vs Eicher Ltd. (2006) 103 TTJ 369 (Del TAT). f. Dhanlakshmi Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (2007) 12 SOT 625 (Coch –ITAT) g. Birla Group Holdings Ltd. Vs DCIT (2007)13 SOT 642 (Mum-ITAT) h. Auchte] Products…

Dy. C.I.T. 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd., Raipur

In the result, appeal filed for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 358/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 801ASection 80ISection 8Q

…rs : 2009-10, 2010-2011& 2011-12 case of the assessee. For this proposition, he relied various judicial decisions as under: a. Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Vs Collector of Customs (1993J 68ELT 3 CSC), b. Goodyear India Ltd. Vs State of Haryana (1991) 188 ITR 402 (SC), c. Wimco Seedlings Ltd. & State of Maharashtra Vs DCIT (2007) 107 ITD 267 (Del. ITAT), d. C1T Vs Hero Cycle Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR518 (P&H HC), e. ACIT Vs Eicher Ltd. (2006) 103 TTJ 369 (Del TAT). f. Dhanlakshmi Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (2007) 12 SOT 625 (Coch –ITAT) g. Birla Group Holdings Ltd. Vs DCIT (2007)13 SOT 642 (Mum-ITAT) h. Auchte] Products…

Shyam Apparels P.Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 549/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, (Addl.CIT)
Section 201Section 40Section 40A(3)

…able retrospectively i.e. w.e.f. Asstt. Year 2005-06 when the sub section (ia) was inserted in section 40(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Such view has been upheld by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the cases of Goodyear India Ltd. v/s State of Haryana and Anr. (188 ITR 402), Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT (224 ITR 677) and R.B. Jodhamla Kuthiala v/s CIT (82 ITR 570). Recently, Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench (SMC) in the case of Bhupendra Pal Singh [ITA No. 757/JP/16] also concurred with this view (APB 206-209). The Ld. CIT(A) disregarded this plea of the assessee, on the ground that, no certificate as prescribed under…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Shyam Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 497/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, (Addl.CIT)
Section 201Section 40Section 40A(3)

…able retrospectively i.e. w.e.f. Asstt. Year 2005-06 when the sub section (ia) was inserted in section 40(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Such view has been upheld by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the cases of Goodyear India Ltd. v/s State of Haryana and Anr. (188 ITR 402), Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT (224 ITR 677) and R.B. Jodhamla Kuthiala v/s CIT (82 ITR 570). Recently, Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench (SMC) in the case of Bhupendra Pal Singh [ITA No. 757/JP/16] also concurred with this view (APB 206-209). The Ld. CIT(A) disregarded this plea of the assessee, on the ground that, no certificate as prescribed under…

Tarakeswar Vivekananda Pally Seva Kendra, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly, Kolkata

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

ITA 1819/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.C.Gope, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sk. Zafarul Haque Tanweer, JCIT/Addl.CIT
Section 12ASection 143Section 145(3)

…is a precedent for laying down a proposition of allowability of expenditure for computation of income of a charitable institution which is denied benefit Under Section 11. Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1991) 188 ITR 402 (SC), as per head note, held as follows: "Precedent -- Authority only for what it decides - Not for what may remotely or even logically follows - Decision on question not argued cannot be treated as precedent." Thus, the judgment of Honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court (supra) does not help the case of the Revenue. 27. On other hand, learned auth…

Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T Range - 50, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 724/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel of AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, CIT
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…ion. But for this proviso the ambit of section 43B become unduly wide bringing within its scope those payments, which were not intended to be prohibited from the category of permissible deductions. In the case of Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1991) 188 ITR 402, Supreme Court said that the rule of reasonable construction must be applied while construing a statute. Literal construction should be avoided if it defeats the manifest object and purpose of the Act. As observed by G.P. Singh in his Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 4th Edn., Page 291, "It is well settled that if a statute is curative or…