Gursahai Saigal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab

1 ITR 48Supreme Court of India1963#16332 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2023.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Gursahai Saigal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna

ITA/705/2018HC Karnataka31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

…ed that the court would construe the statute in such a manner so as to make the machinery workable. 48 21. In J. Srinivasa Rao (supra), this Court noticed the decisions of this Court in Gursahai Saigal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, [1963] 1 ITR 48(SC) and Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, 2006(202)ELT561(SC).In Gursahai Saigal (supra), the question which fell for consideration before this Court was construction of the machinery provisions vis-à-vis the charging provisions. Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act is not machinery provision. It is a part o…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri. Gali Janardhana Reddy

ITA/704/2018HC Karnataka31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

…l-settled that the court would construe the statute in such a manner so as to make the machinery workable. 21. In J. Srinivasa Rao (supra), this Court noticed the decisions of this Court in Gursahai Saigal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, [1963] 1 ITR 48(SC) and Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, 2006(202)ELT561(SC).In Gursahai Saigal (supra), the question which fell for consideration before this Court was construction of the machinery provisions vis-à-vis the charging provisions. Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act is not machinery provision. It is a part o…

Govind Agarwal. HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 826/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…not defeat the same. (Whitney v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue 1926 A C 37, CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas (1940) 8ITR 442 , Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay, [1955J 27 ITR 2 o (SC) and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT, Punjab [1963] 1 ITR 48 (SC) ". 37. It is the duty of the court while interpreting the machinery provisions of a taxing statute to give effect to its manifest purpose. Wherever the intention to impose liability is clear, the Courts ought not be hesitant in espousing a commonsense interpretation to the machinery provisions so that the charge does not fail. The machinery pr…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana

C.A. No.-003958-003958 - 2014Supreme Court12 Mar 2014
Section 132Section 158B

…court would construe the stat- ute in such a manner so as to make the machinery workable. Page 23 JUDGMENT 23 21. In J. Srinivasa Rao (supra), this Court noticed the de- cisions of this Court in Gursahai Saigal v.Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, [1963] 1 ITR 48(SC) and Ispat Indus- tries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, 2006(202)ELT561(SC).In Gursahai Saigal (supra), the ques- tion which fell for consideration before this Court was construction of the machinery provisions vis-à-vis the charging provisions. Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act is not machinery provisio…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana

C.A. No.-003958-003958 - 2014Supreme Court12 Mar 2014
Section 132Section 158B

…court would construe the stat- ute in such a manner so as to make the machinery workable. Page 23 JUDGMENT 23 21. In J. Srinivasa Rao (supra), this Court noticed the de- cisions of this Court in Gursahai Saigal v.Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, [1963] 1 ITR 48(SC) and Ispat Indus- tries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, 2006(202)ELT561(SC).In Gursahai Saigal (supra), the ques- tion which fell for consideration before this Court was construction of the machinery provisions vis-à-vis the charging provisions. Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act is not machinery provisio…

Gursahai Saigal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab (1 ITR 48) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax