Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT

82 ITR 913Supreme Court of India1971#431 most cited
209

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT · Section 269SS penalty · Section 269T penalty · Section 271D penalty · Section 271E penalty · cash transactions penalty · literal interpretation tax law · legislative intent tax · income deemed assessee's · definition of relative

Also reported as

49 Taxmann 87

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 131(1A)Section 132ASection 269SSSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Issues it is cited on

section 5(8)closely held companyprincipal director general of income-taxaccumulated profitssection 292bsection 292bbsection 260section 260asection 282section 292section 119section 29

Judgments citing Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S. the Hisar Distt. Primary Coop, Hisar

ITA 1313/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, M/S. The Hisar Distt. Hisar Vs Primary Coop. Agri. & Rural Development Bank Ltd.,Lajpat Nagar, Hisar-125001 Pan No.Aaeft2419C (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.111/Del/2017 ( In Ita No.1313/Del/2017) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The Hisar Distt. Coop. Dy. Cit, Agrl. & Rural Dev. Bank Vs Hisar Ltd., Lajpat Nagar, Hisar-125001 Pan No.Aaeft2419C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 36

…ciating the fact that the ratio of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (Supreme Court) is applicable to the case of the assessee and facts of the case of Keshav Ji Ravji & Co. Vs. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 1 (Supreme Court) relied upon by the learned CIT(A) are distinguishable. The appellant craves leave to add, or amend the grounds 3. before the appeal is heard and disposed off." 13. And the Coordinate Bench inter alia, held as under :- 6.2 The Id. DR appearing before us did not even whisper as to whether or not the said circular dated 9.IO.1984 is…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, New Delhi vs. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd

ITA - 163 / 2023HC Delhi20 Mar 2023
Section 131Section 133

…urse to Section 292B of the Act. 11.2 In support of his plea that the 2019 Circular is binding on the revenue, Mr Vohra has relied on the following judgments: i. UCO Bank v. CIT, [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC); ii. Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT, [1971] 182 ITR 913 (SC); and iii. DCIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd., [2011] 330 ITR 491 11.3 Furthermore, to back his contention that recourse cannot be taken to the provisions of Section 292B of the Act, reliance is placed on the following judgments: i. PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT, ITA No. 475 of 2011 (Del); and ii. Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. CIT…

Acc Limited (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT - Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 417/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…ambiguous that they would stand to be examined and construed in the light of surrounding circumstances and constitutional principal and practice. Similar observations were made by the Supreme Court in the case of KeshavjiRavji& Others etc. Vs. CIT reported in 183 ITR 1 (Supreme Court). Further Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam& Ors Vs. CIT reported in 108 ITR 345 wherein it was observed that while interpreting the taxing statutes there is no scope for importing into the statue words which are not there. The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered horn the words used in the statute.…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5692/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…ambiguous that they would stand to be examined and construed in the light of surrounding circumstances and constitutional principal and practice. Similar observations were made by the Supreme Court in the case of KeshavjiRavji& Others etc. Vs. CIT reported in 183 ITR 1 (Supreme Court). Further Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam& Ors Vs. CIT reported in 108 ITR 345 wherein it was observed that while interpreting the taxing statutes there is no scope for importing into the statue words which are not there. The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered horn the words used in the statute.…

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5655/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…ambiguous that they would stand to be examined and construed in the light of surrounding circumstances and constitutional principal and practice. Similar observations were made by the Supreme Court in the case of KeshavjiRavji& Others etc. Vs. CIT reported in 183 ITR 1 (Supreme Court). Further Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam& Ors Vs. CIT reported in 108 ITR 345 wherein it was observed that while interpreting the taxing statutes there is no scope for importing into the statue words which are not there. The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered horn the words used in the statute.…

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1970/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/
Section 132(1)Section 153C

…, one in NavnitLal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) AAC (1965) 56ITR 198 (SC) Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) AAC (1965) 56ITR 198 (SC) Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) AAC (1965) 56ITR 198 (SC) and the other i and the other in Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 913 n Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 913 (SC) that circulars / instructions issued by the CBDT under (SC) that circulars / instructions issued by the CBDT under (SC) that circulars / instructions issued by the CBDT under section 119 of the Act are binding on all officers and persons section 119 of the Act are binding on all officers and pers…

M/S Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai-400021 vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is disposed off as being partly allowed

ITA 1074/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &
Section 143(3)Section 199Section 44

…shares, the payment to the subscriber to the capital cannot be treated as dividend. 14. Before coming to the merits of the present case, we would like to reproduce the observation of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshavji Ravji & Co. v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 1 1 at page 11 as under :— "When words acquire a particular meaning or sense because of their authoritative construction by superior courts, they are presumed to have been used in the same sense when used in a subsequent legislation in the same or similar context." In view of the above observations, the ordinary meaning of the word ‗dividend‘ as de…

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1020/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/
Section 132(1)Section 153C

…, one in NavnitLal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) AAC (1965) 56ITR 198 (SC) Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) AAC (1965) 56ITR 198 (SC) Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) AAC (1965) 56ITR 198 (SC) and the other i and the other in Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 913 n Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 913 (SC) that circulars / instructions issued by the CBDT under (SC) that circulars / instructions issued by the CBDT under (SC) that circulars / instructions issued by the CBDT under section 119 of the Act are binding on all officers and persons section 119 of the Act are binding on all officers and pers…

M/S. Syndicate Bank Staff Co-Op. Society Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 1062/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shi Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234FSection 80Section 80ASection 80P

…ature and the Court ought not, under any circumstances to substitute its own impression and ideas in place of the legislative intent as his available from a plan reading of the statutory provisions". (ii) In the case of KeshavjiRavji& Co. Vs. CIT reported in 183 ITR 1 (SC) it was held that "as long as there is no ambiguity in the statutory language resort to any interpretative process to unfold the legislative intent becomes impermissible. The supposed intention of the legislation cannot then appealed to whittle down the statutory language which is otherwise unambiguous. If the intendment is not in the words use…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 21762 OF 2017 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) APPELLANT(S) VERSUS AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. No. 8193/2012; C.A. No. 5057/2012; C.A. No. 5058/2014; C.A. No. 9974/2018; C.A. No. 5056/2012; C.A. No. 4196/2015; C.A. No. 4374/2015; C.A. No. 9380/2017; C.A. No. 13071/2017; C.A. No. 12058/2017; C.A. No. 16375/2017; C.A. No. 12869/2017; C.A. No. 17527/2017; C.A. No. 21845/2017; C.A. No. 5719/2018; C.A. No. 988…

Poonawalla Shares & Securities Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Circle-4, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 380/PUN/2020[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t is a settled position in law that the Circulars issued by the Board are binding on all its officers and such officers do not have the authority to argue contrary to the same. [KP Varghese vs. ITO (1981) (131 ITR 597) (SC), Ellerman Lines Ltd. vs. CIT (197D (82 ITR 913) (SC)]. 18. Furthermore, in the case of Nomura (supra), the Tribunal has also noted the fact that the Department’s appeal before the Bombay High Court in the case of Raptakos (supra) was dismissed on account of non-prosecution by the Department (ITA 357/2016) (Bom). In this regard, it is submitted that it is trite that where the department accept…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sumir J Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…not a shareholder, and that, according to us, is the correct legal position, such a circular would be of no avail." 11.2. Our attention was also invited to another judgment of the Supreme Court in KeshavjiRavji and Co., -vs- Commissioner of Income-Tax (1990) 183 ITR 1. The relevant observations in the said judgment read thus: "The Tribunal, much less the High Court, is an authority under the Act. The circulars do not bind them. But the benefits of such circulars to assessees have been held to be permissible even though the circulars might have departed from the strict tenor of the statutory provision and mitiga…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Jagadish N Hinduja, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Susan Dolores George, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…not a shareholder, and that, according to us, is the correct legal position, such a circular would be of no avail." 11.2. Our attention was also invited to another judgment of the Supreme Court in KeshavjiRavji and Co., -vs- Commissioner of Income-Tax (1990) 183 ITR 1. The relevant observations in the said judgment read thus: "The Tribunal, much less the High Court, is an authority under the Act. The circulars do not bind them. But the benefits of such circulars to assessees have been held to be permissible even though the circulars might have departed from the strict tenor of the statutory provision and mitiga…

Srm Sweets and Cakes, Erode vs. ADIT-CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 545/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 5

…Explanation 2 to sec.36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to sec.43B are to have effect for and from the asst.year 2021-22. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering section 5 of The General Clauses Act and the impact of the decisions reported in 72 TTR 595 [SC]; 183 ITR 1 [SC]; 183 ITR 559 [sC]; 205 ITR 569 [Bom]; 213 ITR 340, 357 [SC], 243 TTR 56 [SC], 375 TTR 392 [SC], AIR 1995 SC 226, AIR 1996 SC 224 and AIR 1996 SC 238. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the decisions of IT AT, more particularly decisions which had clearly discussed the impact of the newly inserted Explanations to sections 361)(va) and…

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITA 1655/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Ms. Divya Bajpai, CIT
Section 14ASection 28Section 43BSection 44

…w expressed by Hon'ble Court and that is the only guidance available to solve such nature of dispute. 5.3 The Hon'ble Courts have' pronounced a theory of reasonable construction in a situation of change in the law. In the case of Keshavji Ravji and Co, v. CIT 183 ITR 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has said an interpretation should lead to a result intended by the legislation. likewise in the case of CIT v S. Teja Singh 35 ITR 408 it was viewed that construction which defeats the very object sought to be achieved by the legislature must be avoided. likewise in a landmark decision of K.P. Varghese VS. ITO 131 ITR 597…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Pune

ITA 1645/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Ms. Divya Bajpai, CIT
Section 14ASection 28Section 43BSection 44

…w expressed by Hon'ble Court and that is the only guidance available to solve such nature of dispute. 5.3 The Hon'ble Courts have' pronounced a theory of reasonable construction in a situation of change in the law. In the case of Keshavji Ravji and Co, v. CIT 183 ITR 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has said an interpretation should lead to a result intended by the legislation. likewise in the case of CIT v S. Teja Singh 35 ITR 408 it was viewed that construction which defeats the very object sought to be achieved by the legislature must be avoided. likewise in a landmark decision of K.P. Varghese VS. ITO 131 ITR 597…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2248/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…or third, as the case may be. It was contended that the CBDT Circulars are binding on the Departmental authorities, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of K.P. Verghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 and Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 913. In fact, the very same Circular No. 240 dated 17.05.1978 came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Investment Trust of India Ltd. [2003] 127 Taxman 168/264 ITR 506 and it was held to be binding on the Departmental authorities. Accordingly, it has been explained that in view of the Circular of CBDT dated 17.05.19…

Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1849/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…or third, as the case may be. It was contended that the CBDT Circulars are binding on the Departmental authorities, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of K.P. Verghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 and Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 913. In fact, the very same Circular No. 240 dated 17.05.1978 came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Investment Trust of India Ltd. [2003] 127 Taxman 168/264 ITR 506 and it was held to be binding on the Departmental authorities. Accordingly, it has been explained that in view of the Circular of CBDT dated 17.05.19…

Nilkamal Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT Central Cir-1(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2001/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Nilkamal Limited Acit, Cc-1(2) 77/78, Nilkamal House, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Road No. 13, Midc, Old Cgo, Annexe, Andheri (East), M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 093 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aaacn2329N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi, A.R Revenue By : Shri Kprr Murty, D.R Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murty, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA No.2001/Mum/2020 A.Y.2016-17 1 Nilkamal Limited Vs. ACIT, CC-1(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Nilkamal Limited ACIT, CC-1(2) 77/78, Nilkamal House, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Road No. 13, MIDC, Old CGO, Annexe, Andheri (East), M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 093 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN No. AAACN2329N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Vipul Joshi, A.R Revenue by : Shri KPRR Murty, D.R Date of Hearing : 06/10/2021 Date of pronouncement : 08/10/2021 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present appeal filed…

R D Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 17, Mumbai

ITA 7242/MUM/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 11Section 115TSection 12A

…oyed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the Board”. The CBDT circulars thus bind all the field authorities. In Navnitlal Jhaveri Vs Sen [(1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC)], Ellerman Lines Ltd Vs CIT [( 1971) 82 ITR 913 (SC)] and K P Verghese Vs ITO [( 1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC)], Hon’ble Supreme Court has accepted the validity and binding nature of the beneficent Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 28 of 36 or benevolent circulars, and recognized the taxpayer’s right to enforce these circulars, in favour of the assessee, even in courts. In the case of Sedco Forex Interna…