Gursahai Saigal v. CIT

48 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1963#952 most cited

What is Gursahai Saigal v. CIT authority for?

The rule of strict construction applies to a taxing provision that creates a charge for tax, but machinery provisions for making assessments are interpreted liberally. This distinction ensures that while the tax burden is clearly established, procedural aspects are construed to facilitate tax collection.

112

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gursahai Saigal v. CIT · 48 ITR 1 · SC 1963 · interpretation of taxing statutes · charging provision · machinery provision · strict construction · liberal interpretation · assessment procedure · income tax law

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234ASection 234CSection 115BBESection 133ASection 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 234e(1)section 274(2)section 243section 245hacasus omissussection 200a(1)(c)section 245csection 254(2)section 200a(1)settlement applicationsection 245d(4)section 153(4)

Judgments citing Gursahai Saigal v. CIT

Nalin Vyas (Through Legal Heir Brijesh Vyas), Virar vs. ITO 4 (3), Thane

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

ITA 6396/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR) &
Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…he object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (See Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas, (1940) 8 ITR 442, Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Excess Profits Tax, (1955) 27 ITR 20 (SC) and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, (1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC).)” 19.8 While it is true that section 153C of the Act is also a machinery provision for assessment of income A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Nalin Vyas of a person other than the person searched, in the opinion of this court, this is not a case where by virtue of the amendment, there is merely a change in the procedural provisions affecting th…

Nalin Vyas (Through Legal Heir Brijesh Vyas), Virar vs. ITO 4 (3), Thane

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

ITA 6395/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR) &
Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…he object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (See Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas, (1940) 8 ITR 442, Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Excess Profits Tax, (1955) 27 ITR 20 (SC) and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, (1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC).)” 19.8 While it is true that section 153C of the Act is also a machinery provision for assessment of income A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Nalin Vyas of a person other than the person searched, in the opinion of this court, this is not a case where by virtue of the amendment, there is merely a change in the procedural provisions affecting th…

Nalin Vyas (Through Legal Heir Brijesh Vyas), Virar vs. ITO 4 (3), Thane

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

ITA 6394/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR) &
Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…he object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (See Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas, (1940) 8 ITR 442, Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Excess Profits Tax, (1955) 27 ITR 20 (SC) and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, (1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC).)” 19.8 While it is true that section 153C of the Act is also a machinery provision for assessment of income A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Nalin Vyas of a person other than the person searched, in the opinion of this court, this is not a case where by virtue of the amendment, there is merely a change in the procedural provisions affecting th…

Nalin Vyas (Through Legal Heir Brijesh Vyas), Virar vs. ITO 4 (3), Thane

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

ITA 6393/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR) &
Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…he object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (See Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas, (1940) 8 ITR 442, Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Excess Profits Tax, (1955) 27 ITR 20 (SC) and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, (1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC).)” 19.8 While it is true that section 153C of the Act is also a machinery provision for assessment of income A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Nalin Vyas of a person other than the person searched, in the opinion of this court, this is not a case where by virtue of the amendment, there is merely a change in the procedural provisions affecting th…

Nalin Vyas (Through Legal Heir Brijesh Vyas), Virar vs. ITO 4 (3), Thane

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

ITA 6392/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR) &
Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…he object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (See Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas, (1940) 8 ITR 442, Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Excess Profits Tax, (1955) 27 ITR 20 (SC) and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, (1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC).)” 19.8 While it is true that section 153C of the Act is also a machinery provision for assessment of income A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Nalin Vyas of a person other than the person searched, in the opinion of this court, this is not a case where by virtue of the amendment, there is merely a change in the procedural provisions affecting th…

M/S. Siddhi Diamond, Bhavnagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2190/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memebr & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: 08/07/2022
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147

…es of natural justice. In this regard, we rely on the following decisions: • Avan Gidwani v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.) (I.T.A. No.5138/Mum/2015, dt. 06.04.2016) • CIT v. E.D. Benny & Ors. (2015) 234 Taxman 802 / 126 DTR 296 (Ker.HC) • Naresh Chauhan v. Dy.CIT (2016) 48 ITR 1 (Chd.)(Trib) • ACIT v. Saraswati Builders (2017) 183 TTJ13 (UO) (Asr.)(Trib.) • ACIT v. Krafts Palace (2015) 68 SOT 338(URO) / 40 iTR 158 / 154 ITD 275 (Agra)(Trib.) • Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Bom HC) With respect to AO's remand report: • We would like to submit that the AO has through oversight/mistakenly understood th…

Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commerical Premises Co Op Soc. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4708/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2021AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4709/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year :2012-13) & ITA No.4138/Mum/2014 to 4144/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year :2004-05 to 2010-11) Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Laxmi Finance & Leasing Income Tax-18(2) Companies Earnest House, Commercial Premises Co-op Soc. Room No.302, 3rd Floor Ltd. Nariman Point, Laxmi Towers, Plot No.C-25, Bandra Mumbai-400021 Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No.AAAJL0006F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) ITA No.3711/Mum/2014 to 3717/Mu…

Riddhi Siddhi Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. - 6(4), Mumbai

ITA 646/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanita Nos.646-647/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Riddhi Siddhi Developers P. Ltd Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 45, Maker Chambers-Iii, Central Circle – 6(4), Room No. 1925, Vs. 223 Nariman Point, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai – 400 021 Nariman Point , Mumbai – 400 021 Pan – Aaacr0426N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Hema KatariaFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swami, CIT D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…he object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (See Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas, (1940) 8 ITR 442, Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Excess Profits Tax, (1955) 27 ITR 20 (SC) and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, (1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC).)” 19.8 While it is true that section 153C of the Act is also a machinery provision for assessment of income of a person other than the person searched, in the opinion of this court, this is not a case where by virtue of the amendment, there is merely a change in the procedural provisions affecting the assessees who were covered by the unamende…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. S. S. Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2649/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta & Mr. Govind Javeri, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)

…ility or loss can be said to have been incurred only when the profit is either actually due or M/s S.S. Enterprises 15 the liability becomes enforeceable. Further, it is held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Associated Commercial Corporation, (1963) 48 ITR 1 (Bom) that a mere claim to a profit or to a liability is not sufficient to make the profit to accrue or the liability to be incurred for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. It is also clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 835 (SC) that once accrued, it is liable to the charge even if, subsequently, it…

M/S. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Unit Bhilai Steel Plant) Ispat Bhawan . Through Its Sr. Manager (F and A) vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Raipur

C.A. No.-002150-002150 - 2012Supreme Court08 May 2019

Bench: Us. 2. Very Briefly Put, The Question Which We Are Called Upon To Consider & Resolve Is As To Whether Interest Is Payable On The Differential Excise Duty With Retrospective Effect That Become Payable On The Basis Of Escalation Clause Under Section 11Ab Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 3. In This Batch Of Appeals, We Will Treat C.A. No.2150/2012 As The Leading Case. We Will Refer To The Said Case As The Sail Case. In The Said Case Originally, The Appellant Company Which Is Manufacturer Of Various Products Including Rail

Section 11Section 11A

…R 442 : AIR 1940 PC 124 : 67 IA 239], India United Mills 42 Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay [(1955) 1 SCR 810 : AIR 1955 SC 79 : (1955) 27 ITR 20] and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, Punjab [(1963) 3 SCR 893 : AIR 1963 SC 1062 : (1963) 48 ITR 1] ). But it must also be realised that provision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract or usage interest can be levied under law and it cannot be recovered by way of damages for w…

Manish Maheshwari, Gwalior vs. JCIT Range-2, Gwalior

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 308/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

Section 133Section 40A(3)Section 57Section 68

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra Before: Shri A.D. Jain, Judicial Member And Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 vs. JCIT, Range – 2, Manish Maheshwari, Prop. Manish Sales, Inderganj Gwalior Square, Opp. Old High Court, Gwalior (M.P.) 474 009 PAN ABKPM 1254 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Pankaj Gargh, Advocate Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 29.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement 26/09/2018 ORDER Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 20.05.2013…

Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai vs. M/S. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through Its Manager

C.A. No.-002165-002165 - 2012Supreme Court31 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14A

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2165 OF 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER … RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A.No.1429 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 36560 of 2012, C.A. No. 117 of 2015, C.A. No. 5101 of 2012, C.A. No. 118 of 2015, C.A. No. 6727 of 2015, C.A. No. 119 of 2015, C.A. No. 116 of 2015, C.A. No. 194 of 2015, C.A. No. 114 of 2015, C.A. No. 120 of 2015, C.A. No. 7395 of 2012, C.A. No. 7394 of 2012, C.A. No. 121 of 2015,…