Krishnaswamy S. Pd v. Union of India

281 ITR 305Supreme Court of India2006#1664 most cited

What is Krishnaswamy S. Pd v. Union of India authority for?

The case upholds the legal maxim "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia", meaning one is not required under the law to perform what is impossible. This principle applies when compliance with a legal requirement is practically impossible.

68

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Krishnaswamy S. Pd v. Union of India · Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia · impossibility of performance · not required to perform impossible · statutory compliance · Section 178(6) · Section 238 · Section 154 · Section 271(1)(c) · mistake apparent on record

Also reported as

151 Taxmann 286

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 14Section 154Section 178(6)Section 234BSection 234CSection 238Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 178(6)section 31(1)section 238section 60section 32(1)(iia)statutory duessection 31specified domestic transactioncorporate guaranteeadditional depreciationmistake apparent on recordeligible business

Judgments citing Krishnaswamy S. Pd v. Union of India

SRIMANTHI KANTHIMATHI KUMARASWAMI MUDALIAR KALYANAMANDAPAM TRUST,CHITTOOR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

ITA 690/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

Section 12A

…l vs Unknown on 5 June, 1974, (1974) 2 SCC 33. Life Insurance Corp Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410 (SC) State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh 1985 AIR 1082 [SC] State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 Krishnaswamy S. PD. v. Union of India [2006] 281 ITR 305 (SC) CIT V. Revathi Equipment Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 67 (Mad) Emperor v. Ganpat Laxman Kalgutkar, AIR 1938 Bom 427 4. The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the literal interpretation of clause (iii) leads to absurd results and therefore to be eschewed, as held by the Apex Court in K.P.Varghese vs ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC). K. Rathen 5. The CIT(E…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. (KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 470/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

…Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted as "one is not required under the law to perform what is impossible". This legal maxim has been upheld by various courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnaswamy S.PD. and Another vs UOI & others [281 ITR 305]. 2.3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not following the most recent decisions of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Charbhuja Industries P. Ltd [31 ITR (Trib.) 89], Rockline Developers P. Ltd [31 ITR (Trib.) 123] and Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 413- 415/M/11) wherein in identical facts and circumst…

M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 152/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

…Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted as "one is not required under the law to perform what is impossible". This legal maxim has been upheld by various courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnaswamy S.PD. and Another vs UOI & others [281 ITR 305]. 2.3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not following the most recent decisions of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Charbhuja Industries P. Ltd [31 ITR (Trib.) 89], Rockline Developers P. Ltd [31 ITR (Trib.) 123] and Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 413- 415/M/11) wherein in identical facts and circumst…

ACIT, CIR-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(KNOWN AS M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 611/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

…Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted as "one is not required under the law to perform what is impossible". This legal maxim has been upheld by various courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnaswamy S.PD. and Another vs UOI & others [281 ITR 305]. 2.3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not following the most recent decisions of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Charbhuja Industries P. Ltd [31 ITR (Trib.) 89], Rockline Developers P. Ltd [31 ITR (Trib.) 123] and Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 413- 415/M/11) wherein in identical facts and circumst…

BINANI CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1726/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

…Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted as "one is not required under the law to perform what is impossible". This legal maxim has been upheld by various courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnaswamy S.PD. and Another vs UOI & others [281 ITR 305]. 2.3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not following the most recent decisions of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Charbhuja Industries P. Ltd [31 ITR (Trib.) 89], Rockline Developers P. Ltd [31 ITR (Trib.) 123] and Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 413- 415/M/11) wherein in identical facts and circumst…

ORIENT FASHION EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2240/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshorient Fashion Exports Vs. Addl/ Jcit(A), (India) Pvt. Ltd, Udaipur E-45/14, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco4581F Assessee By : Ms. Gargi Sethi, Adv Revenue By: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Gargi Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 30(1)(va)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Orient Fashion Exports Vs. Addl/ JCIT(A), (India) Pvt. Ltd, Udaipur E-45/14, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACO4581F Assessee by : Ms. Gargi Sethi, Adv Revenue by: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04/12/2024 Date of pronouncement 10/12/2024 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.2240/Del/2024 for AY 2022-23, arises out of the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaip…

SRI SANKARAHEALTH CENTRE,VELLORE vs. CIT-EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

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

ITA 781/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - V. Sri Sankara Health Centre, The Cit (Exemptions), 8, Katpadi Road, Chennai. Mottur Village, Vellore-632 006. [Pan: Aakas 6655 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 12ASection 5Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

…nown on 5 June, 1974, (1974) 2 SCC 33. o Life Insurance Corp Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410 (SC) o State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh 1985 AIR 1082 [SC] o State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 o Krishnaswamy S. PD. v. Union of India [2006] 281 ITR 305 (SC) o CIT V. Revathi Equipment Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 67 (Mad) o Emperor v. Ganpat Laxman Kalgutkar, AIR 1938 Bom 427 4. We note that the assessee Trust filed an application in Form No.10AB on 19.04.2023 seeking regular approval for five (5) years under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of Sec.80G of the Act. The Ld.CIT(E) while pro…

DCIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 126/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 165ASection 204Section 250

…ON COGUT AD IMPOSSIBLIA – meaning thereby that a law cannot compel a person to perform an act which he could not possibly perform. This legal maxim has been further approved in the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnaswamy Bros reported in 281 ITR 305 (SC). 3.5.4. We find that the provisions of section 194C of the Act requires the person responsible for paying to a contractor, for "carrying out any work in pursuance of a contract", to deduct tax at source at 1% from the sum payable to individual contractor. We find that the UISPL is not "the person responsible for paying" for the transactions…

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 711/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhuber India Systems Vs. The Dcit(Tds)-2(3) Private Limited Smt. K.G. Mittal Unit 41/46, Floor 3 Ayurvedic Hospital Paragon, Phoenix Market Building, City, Lbs Marg, Charni Road (West) Kurla (W), Mumbai - 400002 Mumbai – 400070 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcu6223H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : J.D. Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By : Achal Sharma

For Appellant: J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 206A

…ON COGUT AD IMPOSSIBLIA – meaning thereby that a law cannot compel a person to perform an act which he could not possibly perform. This legal maxim has been further approved in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnaswamy Bros reported in 281 ITR 305 (SC). 3.5.4. We find that the provisions of section 194C of the Act requires the person responsible for paying to a contractor, for "carrying out any work in pursuance of a contract", to deduct tax at source at 1% from the sum payable to individual contractor. We find that the UISPL is not "the person responsible for paying" for the transactions…

JAMMU AND KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4/ASR/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 154Section 250(6)

…ich apparent from the record. The assessee was unable to bring any order or direction that the revised was accepted with original return. The power of Section 154 is very limited in this case. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Krishnaswamy S. Pd. v. UOI [2006] 281 ITR 305/151 Taxman 286 (SC) held that the maximum 'actus curiae neminemgravabit', is founded upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. An unintentional mistake of the authority which may prejudice the cause of any party I.T.A. No.04/Asr/2020 6 Assessment Year: 2006-07 must and alone could be recti…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 116/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…o do something which is impossible to perform and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Swamy S. PD and 40 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. Another v. Union of India and others 281 ITR 305 wherein the said legal Maxim was accepted by the Hon'ble apex court. 26. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the amount in question paid by the assessee to SSA was not taxable in India in the hands of SSA either u/s.9(1)(vi) or 9(1)(vii) as per the legal position prevalent at the relevant time and the assessee therefore was n…

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 105/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…o do something which is impossible to perform and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Swamy S. PD and 40 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. Another v. Union of India and others 281 ITR 305 wherein the said legal Maxim was accepted by the Hon'ble apex court. 26. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the amount in question paid by the assessee to SSA was not taxable in India in the hands of SSA either u/s.9(1)(vi) or 9(1)(vii) as per the legal position prevalent at the relevant time and the assessee therefore was n…

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JT.CIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5862/MUM/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2021AY 2016-17
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 206ASection 251(2)

…ON COGUT AD IMPOSSIBLIA – meaning thereby that a law cannot compel a person to perform an act which he could not possibly perform. This legal maxim has been further approved in the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnaswamy Bros reported in 281 ITR 305 (SC). 3.5.4. We find that the provisions of section 194C of the Act requires the person responsible for paying to a contractor, for "carrying out any work in pursuance of a contract", to deduct tax at source at 1% from the sum payable to individual contractor. We find that the UISPL is not "the person responsible for paying" for the transactions…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1766/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ed ALP adjustment. The question, which was raised in Bharti Airtel's case (supra) but left unanswered as the assessee had succeeded on merits, reamins unanswered here as well. However, we may add that in the case of Krishnaswamy S PD Vs Union of India [(2006) 281 ITR 305 (SC)], wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, observed that "the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that general exception in the…

AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1757/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ed ALP adjustment. The question, which was raised in Bharti Airtel's case (supra) but left unanswered as the assessee had succeeded on merits, reamins unanswered here as well. However, we may add that in the case of Krishnaswamy S PD Vs Union of India [(2006) 281 ITR 305 (SC)], wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, observed that "the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that general exception in the…

RICH PAINTS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

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

ITA 188/AHD/2015[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2020AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 186/Ahd/2015 1995-96 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 2. 187/Ahd/2015 1996-97 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 3. 188/Ahd/2015 1997-98 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H

For Appellant: Shri Girish Agrawal & VijayFor Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68

…ia” meaning thereby that the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. 35. In holding so we find support & guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Swamy S. PD. & ANR Vs. Union of India &ors reported in 281 ITR 305 wherein it was held that : “The other relevant maxim is, lex non cogitadimpossibilia—the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that ge…

RICH PAINTS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

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

ITA 187/AHD/2015[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 186/Ahd/2015 1995-96 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 2. 187/Ahd/2015 1996-97 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 3. 188/Ahd/2015 1997-98 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H

For Appellant: Shri Girish Agrawal & VijayFor Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68

…ia” meaning thereby that the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. 35. In holding so we find support & guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Swamy S. PD. & ANR Vs. Union of India &ors reported in 281 ITR 305 wherein it was held that : “The other relevant maxim is, lex non cogitadimpossibilia—the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that ge…

RICH PAINTS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

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

ITA 186/AHD/2015[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2020AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 186/Ahd/2015 1995-96 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 2. 187/Ahd/2015 1996-97 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 3. 188/Ahd/2015 1997-98 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H

For Appellant: Shri Girish Agrawal & VijayFor Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68

…ia” meaning thereby that the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. 35. In holding so we find support & guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Swamy S. PD. & ANR Vs. Union of India &ors reported in 281 ITR 305 wherein it was held that : “The other relevant maxim is, lex non cogitadimpossibilia—the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that ge…

MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2204/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2204/Ahd/2013 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Meghmani Organics Limited Vs. DCIT Meghmani House, Shrinivas Society, Central Circle-1(1), Vikas Gruh Road, Ahmedabad-7 Ahmedabad PAN No. AAB CM0 644 E (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah AR Respondent by : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 22.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2020 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA R…

STAR INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Star India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Cit 16(1) Room No.467, 4Th Floor Star House, Urmi Estate 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Mumbai Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn1335Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…ents on account of down- linking, to TDS obligations subsequently, when such a provision was earlier not there in the statute. The assessee relied on the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnaswamy S. Pd & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (281 ITR 305) and the Hon‟ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Channel Guide India Ltd. v. ACIT (139 ITD 49) to support its claim. 9 M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd., 7.3. The ld. AO observed that the channel placement fees charges paid by the broadcasters to the Multi System Operator (MSO) for placing their channel on a particular frequency / bandwidth. He observed…

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4

Krishnaswamy S. Pd v. Union of India (281 ITR 305) — Cited in 68 Judgments | BharatTax