Krishnaswamy S. Pd v. Union of India

281 ITR 305Supreme Court of India2006#1663 most cited

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

The law does not compel individuals to perform impossible actions. The administration of law must consider this general exception in specific cases, acknowledging that it does not intend to compel impossibilities.

68

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Krishnaswamy S. Pd v. Union of India · 281 ITR 305 · SC · impossibility · law does not compel impossibility · lex non cogit ad impossibilia · administration of law

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

ACIT, Central Circle - 4(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Narbheram Vishram, Jharkhand

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 685/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…ting. The maxim "lex non cogit as impossibilla" or that the law cannot compel a person to perform the impossible is, in my considered observation applicable In this case. In the case of Krishnaswamy S. Pd. –vs.- Union of India [2006J 201 CTR (SC) 183 : [2006J 281 ITR 305 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the maxim actus curiae neminem garvabit, i.e., an act of Court shall prejudice no man, is founded upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. The other relevant maxim is lex non cogit dimpossibilia - the law does not compel a man to do what he canno…

Micro Inks Pvt. Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Micro Inks Ltd.), Vapi vs. The Income Tax Officer, ( Intl. Taxn.), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2707/AHD/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

Section 201Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vb)

…ITO,(Int. Taxation), Surat Vs. Micro Inks Ltd.: Vice-Versa /ITA No’s.2375 & 2707/AHD/2014 for A.Y. 2012-13 Page 1 of 27 आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, सुरत"यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/AHD/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. s. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [PAN: AAACH 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/AHD/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asse…

The ITO, (International Taxation), Surat vs. Micro Inks Limited, Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2375/AHD/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

Section 201Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vb)

…ITO,(Int. Taxation), Surat Vs. Micro Inks Ltd.: Vice-Versa /ITA No’s.2375 & 2707/AHD/2014 for A.Y. 2012-13 Page 1 of 27 आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, सुरत"यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/AHD/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. s. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [PAN: AAACH 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/AHD/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asse…

M/S Ajay Salt & Chemicals, Una vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Veraval

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 296/RJT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

For Appellant: Written Submission
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…bilia” meaning thereby that the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. 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 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 8 “The other relevant maxim is, lex non cogit ad impossibilia—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…

Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd., Sikka vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jamnagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/RJT/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.184/Rjt/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) बनाम/ Shree Digvijay Cement Co. A.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-2, Vs. Digvijaygram Sikka, Jamnagar. Jamnagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs0957J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Cit.D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 19/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Jamnagar [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 29/03/2011, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 21/12/2009 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007-08. A.Y. 2007-08 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)

…A.Y. 2007-08 thereby that the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. 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 cogit ad impossibilia—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…

Shri Jaiprakash Devkinandan Chiripal, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 405/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 405/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Jaiprakash Devkinandan Chiripal, D.C.I.T, 283, New Cloth Market, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Outside Raipur Gate, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380002. Pan: Aajpa4564C

Section 53A

…a” meaning thereby that the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. 7.4 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 cogit ad impossibilia—the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its Asstt. Year 2013-14 8 administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities, and the administration…

The Jt. CIT, Range-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mastek Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 514/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT- D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…o this law coming on the statute i.e. 28th May 2012. The law is well settled. It does not expect anyone to perform an impossibility. Reiterating this settled legal position, Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Krishnaswamy S Pd Vs Union of India [(2006) 281 ITR 305 (SC)], observed as follows: 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 g…

Mastek Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Rang4, Ahmedabad

ITA 172/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT- D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…o this law coming on the statute i.e. 28th May 2012. The law is well settled. It does not expect anyone to perform an impossibility. Reiterating this settled legal position, Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Krishnaswamy S Pd Vs Union of India [(2006) 281 ITR 305 (SC)], observed as follows: 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 g…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mastek Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1852/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT- D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…o this law coming on the statute i.e. 28th May 2012. The law is well settled. It does not expect anyone to perform an impossibility. Reiterating this settled legal position, Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Krishnaswamy S Pd Vs Union of India [(2006) 281 ITR 305 (SC)], observed as follows: 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 g…

Mastek Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD) - 1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1188/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT- D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…o this law coming on the statute i.e. 28th May 2012. The law is well settled. It does not expect anyone to perform an impossibility. Reiterating this settled legal position, Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Krishnaswamy S Pd Vs Union of India [(2006) 281 ITR 305 (SC)], observed as follows: 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 g…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACJ7079D Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR Date of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 ORDER Per N.…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department stands

ITA 5392/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri B.B. Bhagat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40aSection 9Section 9(1)

…ITA No. 5392/Del/2014 Assessment year 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax officer, M/s Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Ward 6(2), 805, Vishal Bhawan, vs New Delhi. 95, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Appellant Respondent Department by: Shri Gaurav Sharma, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri B.B. Bhagat, Advocate Date of hearing : 30.08.2018 Date of pronouncement : 27.11.2018 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is preferred by the d…

Siti Cable Network Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6961/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Siti Cable Network Ltd. Acit, Range -11(1) (Partly Mrged With Dish Tv India Ltd.) Room No. 439, 4Th Floor 135,Continental Building Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai 400018 Pan – Aaaca5478M Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent By: Shri Ashish Kumar Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Filed By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Mumbai Dated 15.09.2014 & It Relates To A.Y. 2005-05. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Cable Network Services (Called Multi System Operator) To Cable Operators, Subscribers, Franchisee & Affiliates, Etc. The Original Return Of Income Was Filed By The Assessee On 31.10.2004 Showing Loss Of `83,73,94,340/-. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Vide Order Dated 22.12.2006 Assessing The Total Income At `249,53,53,900/- By Adding Subscription Income Of `356,32,58,864/- & Disallowing Write Off Of Loan & Advances Of `5,09,64,244/- & Write Of Off Inventories Of Band Width Charges Of `2,23,59,985/-. The Learned Cit(A), Vide Order Dated 23.03.2007 & His Order Under Section 154 Dated 15.06.2007 Deleted The Addition Of Subscription Income & Inventories

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(vii)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member M/s. Siti Cable Network Ltd. ACIT, Range -11(1) (Partly mrged with Dish TV India Ltd.) Room No. 439, 4th Floor 135,Continental Building Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai 400018 PAN – AAACA5478M Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent by: Shri Ashish Kumar Date of Hearing: 25.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, JM This appeal filed by Revenue is directed against the order of…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Chemical Process Piping P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1503/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit 14(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Chemical Process Room No.470, 4Th Floor Piping Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Cpe Plots, Bsd Marg Maharshikarve Road Off. Sion Trombay Road Mumbai – 400 020 Govandi, Mumbai – 400 088 Pan/Gir No. Aaccc6212D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(2)

…vs ACIT (T'S 062 IT AT 2012) Mum. In Sterling Abrasive Ltd Vs ACIT 44 SOT 652 dated 23-12-2010 Ahm ITAT similar issue was decided in favour of Assessee relying on Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Swamy S. PD and another v. UOI and other (2006) 281 ITR 305 where in the said legal Maxim was accepted by the Honourable Apex Court, as under: - "The maximum of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit - an act of court shall 'prejudice no man, is founded upon justice and good sense which serves .a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. The other relevant maxim is, lex non cogit ad imp…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Rane (Madras) Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2789/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate
Section 40Section 9(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘सी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member I.T.A.Nos.2788 and 2789/Chny/2017 Assessment Years:2009-10 and 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s. Rane (Madras) Limited, Income Tax, Vs. “Maithri”, 132, Cathedral Road, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai 600 086. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AACCR9772M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT ""यथ" क" ओर…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Rane (Madras) Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2788/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate
Section 40Section 9(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘सी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member I.T.A.Nos.2788 and 2789/Chny/2017 Assessment Years:2009-10 and 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s. Rane (Madras) Limited, Income Tax, Vs. “Maithri”, 132, Cathedral Road, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai 600 086. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AACCR9772M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT ""यथ" क" ओर…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Haldex India Ltd., Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1731/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar ChawareFor Respondent: Shri R.D. Onkar
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

…nd non-AE segment of the assessee separately as well as of the external comparables chosen in the peer set. Law does not expect a person to do the impossible. (Lex non cogita d impossibilia). The legal proposition is upheld by Hon’ble SC in Krishnaswamy S. PD 281 ITR 305. 2. In the light of mixed nature of transactions and the impossibility to benchmark under TNMM the PLI of exports and domestic activities separately and also its comparison with uncontrolled comparables, proportionate adjustment is granted by Ld.CIT(A). Issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of jurisdictional Bombay…

The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2), Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed and ground no

ITA 1929/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 69/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)

…f the assessee. The law cannot compel a person to perform an act which he could not possibly perform. This legal maxim had been given due weightage and consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnaswamy S. Pd. vs Union of India reported in 281 ITR 305 (SC). Accordingly , we hold that the assessee is eligible for depreciation in the sum of Rs 15,99,45,025/- . 9.4. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed and ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 10. To sum up, Appeal By ITA No. Asst Year Result Revenue 1860/Kol/2016 2009-10 Allowed Assessee CO 69/…

DCIT, Circle-5(2), Kolkata vs. The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd, Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed and ground no

ITA 1901/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 69/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)

…f the assessee. The law cannot compel a person to perform an act which he could not possibly perform. This legal maxim had been given due weightage and consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnaswamy S. Pd. vs Union of India reported in 281 ITR 305 (SC). Accordingly , we hold that the assessee is eligible for depreciation in the sum of Rs 15,99,45,025/- . 9.4. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed and ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 10. To sum up, Appeal By ITA No. Asst Year Result Revenue 1860/Kol/2016 2009-10 Allowed Assessee CO 69/…

DCIT, Circle-5(2), Kolkata vs. The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd, Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed and ground no

ITA 1860/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 69/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)

…f the assessee. The law cannot compel a person to perform an act which he could not possibly perform. This legal maxim had been given due weightage and consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnaswamy S. Pd. vs Union of India reported in 281 ITR 305 (SC). Accordingly , we hold that the assessee is eligible for depreciation in the sum of Rs 15,99,45,025/- . 9.4. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed and ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 10. To sum up, Appeal By ITA No. Asst Year Result Revenue 1860/Kol/2016 2009-10 Allowed Assessee CO 69/…