Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

231 ITR 26Reported decision1998#9235 most cited

What is Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The principle of beneficial interpretation applies only when there is a genuine doubt or two equally reasonable interpretations of a statutory provision; it cannot be used to misinterpret a clear provision to grant an unintended benefit to the taxpayer.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2021.

Also referred to as

Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. CIT · 231 ITR 26 · beneficial interpretation · statutory interpretation · clear provision · taxpayer benefit · doubt in law · unambiguous provision · Bombay High Court

Judgments citing Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 15/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

…clear and unambiguous the court has to give effect to it whatever be the consequences, in this context, reliance is Page 3 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. placed on the decision in the case of Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd vs. CIT, 231 ITR 26. 4.14 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Petron Engg. Construction Pvt Ltd vs. CBDT 175 ITR 523 held that liberal interpretation of an incentive provision can be resorted to only when it is possible without impairing the legislative requirement and the spirit of the provision. Where the phraseology of a particular provision takes within its swee…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 956/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

…clear and unambiguous the court has to give effect to it whatever be the consequences, in this context, reliance is Page 3 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. placed on the decision in the case of Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd vs. CIT, 231 ITR 26. 4.14 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Petron Engg. Construction Pvt Ltd vs. CBDT 175 ITR 523 held that liberal interpretation of an incentive provision can be resorted to only when it is possible without impairing the legislative requirement and the spirit of the provision. Where the phraseology of a particular provision takes within its swee…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1554/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

…clear and unambiguous the court has to give effect to it whatever be the consequences, in this context, reliance is Page 3 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. placed on the decision in the case of Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd vs. CIT, 231 ITR 26. 4.14 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Petron Engg. Construction Pvt Ltd vs. CBDT 175 ITR 523 held that liberal interpretation of an incentive provision can be resorted to only when it is possible without impairing the legislative requirement and the spirit of the provision. Where the phraseology of a particular provision takes within its swee…

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Charak Pharma P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7117/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Charak Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 6(2)(1) 21, Evergreen Industrial Estate R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan Shakti Mill Lane, Opp. Dr. E. Moses Road Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 011 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcc4014A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ronak G. Doshi & Ms. Niyanta Mehta Department By : Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi &For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 72A

…shares having 51 % voting power. It also , does not specify which voting power. Further, in my opinion, principal of beneficial interpretation would apply in such circumstance. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Rayon Corporation reported in 231 ITR 26 held that "The principle of beneficial interpretation applies only when there is reasonable and genuine doubt in regard to the interpretation of a 8 M/s. Charak Pharma Pvt. Ltd., particular provision. It has no application to a case where the provision is clear and the law is well-settled. It cannot be stretched too far. It cannot be used to misin…

M/S Bisseswariall Mannalal & Sons, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-33, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee( Ground No

ITA 1140/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1140/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Bisseswarlall Vs. Dcit, Cir-33, Kolkata 10B, Middleton Row,3Rd Floor, Mannalal& Sons 12, Pretoria Street, 5Th Floor, Kolkata Kolkata – 71. – 700 071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 7736 L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 80Section 80I

…Dy CIT [2004]266 ITR 521/135 Taxman 594 that when there is no ambiguity in the provisions of the statute, the provisions cannot be interpreted to confer benefit on the assessee. Even Mumbai High Court in the case of Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 26/97 Taxman 501 (Bom) has categorically held that principles of beneficial interpretation would apply only in a case where the Court is in doubt about the true scope and ambit of the provisions or finds two equally reasonable interpretations where the words of the statute are plain, precise and unambiguous. In view of our aforesaid discussions, we a…

Manjeera Projects, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1082/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…ITA Nos 1704 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA Nos.1704/Hyd/2014, 1230/Hyd/2015 & 1082/Hyd/2016 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manjeera Projects Vs ITO Ward – 6 ( 2 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AAOFM 0872 C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K.C. Devdas For Revenue : Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR Date of Hearing: 13.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 27.04.2018 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. These are all as…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1230/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…ITA Nos 1704 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA Nos.1704/Hyd/2014, 1230/Hyd/2015 & 1082/Hyd/2016 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manjeera Projects Vs ITO Ward – 6 ( 2 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AAOFM 0872 C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K.C. Devdas For Revenue : Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR Date of Hearing: 13.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 27.04.2018 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. These are all as…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(2), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1704/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…ITA Nos 1704 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA Nos.1704/Hyd/2014, 1230/Hyd/2015 & 1082/Hyd/2016 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manjeera Projects Vs ITO Ward – 6 ( 2 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AAOFM 0872 C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K.C. Devdas For Revenue : Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR Date of Hearing: 13.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 27.04.2018 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. These are all as…

Siemens Technology and Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 7, Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeals for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2005-06 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4165/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasadsiemens Information Systems V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Limited Tax, 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, 7(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Raod Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 018 Pan : Aaacs 9788 E (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri E.Sankaran
Section 10ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Siemens Information Systems v. Assistant Commissioner of Income- Limited tax, 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, 7(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Raod Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 018 PAN : AAACS 9788 E (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellant by : Mrs. Vasanti Patel प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri E.Sankaran Assistant Commissioner of Income- v. Siemens Information Systems tax, Limited 7(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Raod 130, Pandurang Bud…

Siemens Information Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeals for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2005-06 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6299/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasadsiemens Information Systems V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Limited Tax, 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, 7(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Raod Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 018 Pan : Aaacs 9788 E (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri E.Sankaran
Section 10ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Siemens Information Systems v. Assistant Commissioner of Income- Limited tax, 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, 7(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Raod Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 018 PAN : AAACS 9788 E (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellant by : Mrs. Vasanti Patel प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri E.Sankaran Assistant Commissioner of Income- v. Siemens Information Systems tax, Limited 7(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Raod 130, Pandurang Bud…

DCIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mecano (I) Pltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4620/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

Section 10ASection 10BSection 70Section 80A(1)Section 80B(5)Section 80C

…for deduction under section 80HH of the Income- tax Act, 1961, will be the net income as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not the gross income." (p. 387) 13. The Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Rayon Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 98 has considered the depreciation in the matter of special deduction. In the said case, the following reference was made : "...Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that depreciation allowance ought to be deducted while computing the total income for the purposes of deduction unde…

Dabur India Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/579/2007HC Delhi01 Sept 2008

Bench: We Consider The Submissions Made In Support Of The Appeal The Following Facts Require To Be Noted:- 2.1 The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Herbal Products & Cosmetics. On 30.11.2000 Assessee Filed Its Return For Assessment Year 2000-01 Wherein, It Declared An Income Of Rs 12,15,25,093/-. On 10.5.2001 The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Act As The Returned Income. However, Notices Were Issued Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. 2.2 In Response To The Aforesaid Notices, Hearing Was Attended By An Authorized Representative Before The Assessing Officer. 2008:Dhc:2521

For Respondent: Mr R. D.Jolly
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 32Section 34Section 80Section 80I

…be deducted in arriving at the figure which would be exigible to deduction of 8% under section 80E(1).” 14. The controversy at hand was examined by the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 261 ITR 98. The Bombay High Court examined the issue at great length. The relevant observations read as follows:- 2008:DHC:2521 ITA No. 579-07 Page 23 of 25 ……Secondly, in any event, the controversy in Mahendra Mills’ case (2000) 243 ITR 56 (SC) was not concerning deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, that jud…

Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (231 ITR 26) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax