IRC v. Bladnoch Distillery Co. Ltd.

12 STC 182Supreme Court of India1961#12105 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)Section 23(2)(a)Section 23(2)(b)Section 23(3)(a)

Judgments citing IRC v. Bladnoch Distillery Co. Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1), MUMBAI vs. LAXMI FINANCE AND LEASING COMPANIES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 4233/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 23(1)(a)

…[1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC); Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC [1921] 1 KB 64 ; Bethlehem Hospital In re [1875] L.R. 19 Eq 457; A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala 1957 SCR 837 ; IRC v. Bladnoch Distillery Co. Ltd. [1948] 1 All ER 616 ; CST v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. [1961] 12 STC 182 (SC); CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm, Muar, AIR 1965 SC 1216 ; CED v. Kantilal Trikamlal [1976] 105 ITR 92 (SC); Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1989] 4 SCC 378 ; Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. Excise Commissioner AIR 1971 SC 378. The question as to what is covered must be found out from the language according to its natural me…

M/S CHANDRAKANT H. KAKKAD,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/RJT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 54Section 54F

…uity in the provision of law which is subject to interpretation. Thus in the face of the clear words of the Statute the intent of parties and/or beneficial construction is irrelevant. In fact, e Apex court in Sales Tax Commissioner vs. Modi Sugar Mills [1961] 12 STC 182 reiterated the well settled principle of interpretation in the following words: "In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statute be interpreted on any presumption or assumptions....It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed ..." Recently, the Supreme Cou…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S LAXMI FINANCE & LEASING COMPANIES COMMERCIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOC. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1689/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 23(1) V. M/S. Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Room No. 113, 1St Floor Co-Op. Soc., Limited Matru Mandir, Tardev Road C-25, G-Block, Mumbai – 400 007 Laxmi Towers, Near Icici Bank Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aabal0964G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 23(1)(a)

…[1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC); Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC [1921] 1 KB 64 ; Bethlehem Hospital In re [1875] L.R. 19 Eq 457; A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala 1957 SCR 837 ; IRC v. Bladnoch Distillery Co. Ltd. [1948] 1 All ER 616 ; CST v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. [1961] 12 STC 182 (SC); CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm, Muar, AIR 1965 SC 1216; CED v. Kantilal Trikamlal [1976] 105 ITR 92 (SC); Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1989] 4 SCC 378 ; Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. Excise Commissioner AIR 1971 SC 378. The question as to what is covered must be found out from the language according to its natural mea…

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…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BHAVYA MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2148/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. R.P. Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Imokaba Jamir, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…t of that return is to be made. The Apex Court in the case of CST v. Modi Sugar Mills 16 ITA No. 2148/Kol/2017 & C.O. No. 110/Kol/2018 M/s. Bhavya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No. 139/Kol/2017 & C.O. No. 09/Kol/2018 M/s. SRA Merchandise Pvt. Ltd Ltd. [1961] 12 STC 182 (SC) ; AIR 1961 SC 1047 and in CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC) has held that the while interpreting fiscal statutes, the court must not add or substitute the word in the provision and prayed to allow the grounds raised by the appellant revenue. 33. In reply to Revenue’s contention, Sri R.P. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate placed reliance…

MR.ASLAM ZACKRIA SAIT,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 453/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G. S, CA and Shri. Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 54

…ion of law which is subject to interpretation. Thus in the face of the clear words of the Statute the intent of parties and/or beneficial construction is irrelevant. In fact, the Apex court in Page 14 of 16 Sales Tax Commissioner vs. Modi Sugar Mills [1961] 12 STC 182 reiterated the well settled principle of interpretation in the following words: “in interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statute be interprete on any presumption or assumptions……It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed…” Recently, the Supreme Court…

RAVI KANT HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4174/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant Huf, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabhr0354M

Section 139(1)Section 260ASection 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant HUF, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AABHR0354M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Sanjay Kapadia Shri Purushottam Kumar-DR राज"…

BASARIBANU MOHD RAFIQ LATIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5420/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), V. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abgpl0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…law which is subject to interpretation. Thus in the face of the clear words of the Statute the intent of parties and/or beneficial construction is irrelevant. In fact, the Apex court in Sales Tax ITA 5420/Mum/2016 19 Commissioner v. Modi Sugar Mills [1961] 12 STC 182 reiterated the well settled principle of interpretation in the following words: "In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statute be interpreted on any presumption or assumptions....It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed . . ." Recently, the Supreme…