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

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 723/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

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…

M/S. Mahasakti Foundation, Kalahandi vs. ACIT, Sambalpur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 134/CTK/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40

…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 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 m…

ITO, Ward - 1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gkw Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 459/KOL/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 459/Kol/2012 Assessment Years: 1996-97

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Kolkata Bench, KOLKATA (Bench- “C”) BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, I.T.A. No. 459/Kol/2012 Assessment Years: 1996-97 ITO., Ward-1(3), Kolkata M/s GKW Ltd. -Vs- [PAN :AAACG0671K] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant/Revenue Sri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr. DR For the Respondent/Assessee Sri Soumen Adak, AR Date of Hearing 23.03.2017 Date of Pronouncement 05.04.2017 ORDER Per M. BALAGANESH, AM This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XII, passed u/s 143(3) of the Income…

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 3704/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishinational Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 2 Of 50 National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 271Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…of the pillars of statutory interpretation, viz, the literal rule, demands that, if the meaning of the statutory provisions is plain, the courts must apply it regardless of the result." Again in the case of Good Year India Limited Vs. State of Haryana ( 19^1) 188 ITR 402(SC)( Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, "it has boon said on numerous occasions Page 15 of 50 that fiscal laws must be strictly construed, words used must say what they mean, nothing should be presumed as implied." Assessee's presumption that finance include re finance in the present set of circumstances devoid of any merit as in the case of re-f…

JCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. System Controls & Transformers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5335/DEL/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2017AY 1994-95

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Anadi N. Mishrasystem Controls & Transformers Pvt. Jcit, Ltd., Range-2, Cgo-2, Vs. Ghaziabad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Adv & A.S. Jindal
Section 145(2)Section 234BSection 40A(3)

…rposive interpretation ( under which, when two views are possible, that view is preferred which furthers the purpose with which a provision is enacted ) approved in many judicial decisions, including in Goodyear India Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs. State of Haryana 188 ITR 402 (SC); Shashikant Laxman Kale Vs. UOI 185 ITR 104 (SC); CIT Vs. Page 23 of 28 R.K.B.K. Ltd. 331 ITR 269 (Calcutta); Great Eastern Exports Vs. CIT 332 ITR 14 (Del.) and American Hotel and Lodging Associating Educational Institution Vs. CBDT 289 ITR 46 (Del.). (C.10) In view of the foregoing paragraphs (C), (C.l), (C.2), (C.3), (C.4), (C.5), (C.5…

The ACIT, Cicle -4(1), Indore vs. M/S. Narottamdas Enterprises Poddar Plaza, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 843/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 16

….No. 843/Ind/2016-A.Y.2009-10 Page 14 of 16 M/s.Narttamdas Enterprises, Indore 5.3 It is a settled law that book entries are not decisive as held by Supreme Court & other High Courts in various judgments reported in 82 ITR 363 at 367 (SC) ; 187 ITR 688 (SC); 188 ITR 402 (SC) ; 200 ITR 588 (SC); 189 ITR 406 (Bom) ; 166 ITR 797 at p. 802 (Cal); and 112 ITR 1038 (All). The fact remains that remittances were made through banking channels only i.e. RTGS and the amounts were debited to the account of the supplier i.e. M/s. Bharat Bidi Works, hence disallowance u/s 40A(3) of Income Tax Act,1961 cannot be made. These en…

Agile Electric Sub Assembly (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA 2497/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2497/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 79

…therein. We are, however, unable to infer the proposition as being canvassed as flowing from the said decision. As is trite law, a decision is an authority only for what it actually decides, explained in Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [1991] 188 ITR 402 (SC) in the following words: “A precedent is an authority only for what it actually decides and not what may remotely or even logically follow from it.” (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…

ACIT, CC-44, Mumbai vs. Shilpa Sunil Majithia, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

ITA 5138/MUM/2009[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 1995-96
Section 268A

…not whether what constitutes a pending assessment or a completed assessment. A precedent is an authority only for what it actually decides and not what may remotely or even logically follow from it (Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another [1991] 188 ITR 402 (SC); Blue Star Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 514 (Bom.); and Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwala (P.) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 243 (Del.) (FB)). The said decision cannot be in any case be read as not consistent with what stands stated explicitly or explained in Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra). The said, latter decision stands also di…

ITO WD 2(4), Thane vs. Shiv Om Universal, Badlapur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6754/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Vachaspati TripathiFor Respondent: Shri Shriram Bajaj
Section 143(3)Section 80

…text in which it is rendered. This is as the words take their colour from the context in which they are used (CIT vs. Venkateswar Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 174 (SC)). Again, as explained in Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another [1991] 188 ITR 402 (SC), a precedent is an authority only for what it actually decides and not what may remotely or even logically follow from it (also: CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC); Blue Star Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 514 (Bom.)). Considering it as a stipulation, rather than a qualitative attribute, the same can be regarded as me…

M/S Obulapuram Mining Company P. Ltd., Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K.Mathew, CIT-III
Section 263Section 92A

…also does not further the cause of the department, as it does not address the issue raised by the assessee before us in the present case, as discussed. 37. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of "Good year India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana", 188 ITR 402 (SC), has held that a decision on a question which has not been argued cannot be treated as a precedent. Further, when a statute vests certain powers in an authority to be exercised in a certain manner that authority has to exercise those powers only in a manner provided in the statute itself. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "…

Mahindra Telecommunications Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2832/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mahindra Telecommunications Income Tax Officer, 2(2)(3), बनाम/ Investment Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3774 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. P. Mahajani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.1.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Background Facts The Facts Of The Case Are Simple & Undisputed. The Assessee-Company, Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Pursuant To A Shareholders’ Agreement Dated March

For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 143(3)

…poration Ltd. (supra), referred to earlier. It is again trite law that a precedent is an authority only for what it actually decides and not what may remotely or even logically follow from it (refer: Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another [1991] 188 ITR 402 (SC) and Blue Star Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 514 (Bom). In sum 5. The assessee following the accrual method of accounting for finalizing its accounts as well as reporting income - being in fact legally obliged to do so, the said concept, i.e., accrual, a fundamental accounting assumption – so that the accounts cannot be considered as reflecting…

Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT 2(2)

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3324/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3324 & 4645/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Mahindra Navistar Automotives Dy. Cit, 2(2), Limited, Mumbai बनाम/ 128 A, Sanghavi Compound, Off. Mumbai Pune Highway, Vs. Opp. Jayashree Cinema, Chinchwad, Pune-411 019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 7863 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. P. Mahajani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. P. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are A Set Of Two Appeals By The Assessee Agitating Its Assessments, I.E., As Modified By The First Appellate Authority, For Two Consecutive Years Being Assessment Under The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2007-08 & 2008-09. The Appeals Raising Common Issues Were Listed For & Are Accordingly Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of, By The Common, Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri N. P. Singh
Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35(1)Section 37(1)Section 40

…, in any case, does not represent the ratio of the decision. 12 ITA Nos. 3324 & 4645/Mum/2013 (A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09) Mahindra Navistar Automotives Limited vs. Dy. CIT As clarified in, inter alia, Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another [1991] 188 ITR 402 (SC), a precedent is an authority only for what it actually decides and not what may remotely or even logically follow from it. In fact, the customer receiving the services is the person who finally pays for the same, i.e., at the time of and alongwith the sale price of the vehicle, wherein the cost of the services is embedded. The payer, however…

Sri Ramkrishna Samity, Siliguri vs. D.C.I.T.Cir - 2, Siliguri

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1680/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ananda Sen, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Adhir kr. Bar, CIT, ld.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147

…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 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 me…

ITO, Hassan vs. M/S Vokkaligara Sangha, Belur

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10 are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 281/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(iia)

…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…