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

Toyo Enggineering India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

ITA 6219/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: S/Shri M.P. Lohia and Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru –Sr.DR
Section 145Section 254(1)

…legal Maxim lex non cogit ad impossiblia meaning thereby that the law cannot possibly compel a person to do something which is impossible to perform and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnaswamy S. Pd v. Union of India [2006] 281 ITR 305 / 151 Taxman 286 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 assesse…

M. N. Dastur & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-2 (TDS), Kolkata

In the result, for the statistical purpose, both the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 920/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 200ASection 201

…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 : “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 ITA No.919-920/Kol/2016 A.Ys 08-09 & 10-11 M.N. Dastur & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Cir- (TDS) Ko. Page 6 understood to disclaim as it does in its general…

M. N. Dastur & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-2 (TDS), Kolkata

In the result, for the statistical purpose, both the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 919/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 200ASection 201

…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 : “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 ITA No.919-920/Kol/2016 A.Ys 08-09 & 10-11 M.N. Dastur & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Cir- (TDS) Ko. Page 6 understood to disclaim as it does in its general…

ACIT, Cir-33, Kolkata vs. M/S Ashiana Amar Developers, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1307/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Oct 2017AY 2012-2013
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 80I

…N COGIT AD IMPOSSIBLIA (i.e. the law cannot compel a man to perform an act which he could not possibly perform) which has been given due credence by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnaswamy S. Pd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors reported in (2006) 281 ITR 305 (SC), wherein it was held that the maximactus 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 ad impossiblia – the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perf…

Swanston Multiplex Cinemas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…td. vs ACIT (2012) 25 taxman.com 25 (Mum.). It was also pleaded that when the payment was made, there was no such provision in the Act, therefore, reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnaswamy S. Pd. Vs UOI (2006) 281 ITR 305 (SC). It was also pleaded that the decision in the case of G.E. India (327 ITR 456)(SC) favours the case of the assessee. Our attention was invited to section 40(a) of the Act. 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before adverting further, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant provisio…

Rohda Specialtiy Chemicals India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

ITA 830/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M
Section 143(3)

…pecialty Chemicals India Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.) , A.Y : 2009-10 impossible to perform and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Swamy S. PD and 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 uls.9(1)(vi) or 9(1)(vii) as per the legal position prevalent at the relevant time and the assessee therefore was n…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

ITA 622/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M
Section 143(3)

…pecialty Chemicals India Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.) , A.Y : 2009-10 impossible to perform and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Swamy S. PD and 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 uls.9(1)(vi) or 9(1)(vii) as per the legal position prevalent at the relevant time and the assessee therefore was n…

Cooper Standard Automative India Private Limited, Chengalput vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/CHNY/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Mr.R.Duraipandian, JCITFor Respondent: 21.02.2017
Section 195Section 234BSection 40

…legal Maxim lex non cogit ad impossiblia meaning thereby that the law cannot possibly compel a person to do something which is impossible to perform and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnaswamy S. Pd v. Union of India [2006] 281 ITR 305 / 151 Taxman 286 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 assess…

Sri.Syed Aleemullah, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 389/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Syed Aleemullah, Prop. S.A.Developers, No.950, 27Th A Main, Jayanagar, 9Th Block, Bengaluru-560069. … Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle- 4(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri P.Dinesh, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit(Dr). Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2017

For Appellant: Shri P.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

…pers; CIT vs. G.R.Developers, CIT vs. Anriya Project Management Services, Hon’ble Madras High Court decision in CIT vs. Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprises and the decision of the Hon’ble Page 10 of 19 Supreme Court in the case of Krishnaswamy S PD & another vs. UOI (281 ITR 305). It is further submitted that since the issue in appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Emgeen Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (Bom); DCIT vs. M/s.Varun Developers (Pune) and Patel Jashwantlal A & Patel Punamchand N vs. ITO (Ahd.) If for any reason this Tribunal differs with the decision of the above co-o…

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7513/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…pon the following judgments:- i. Shinhan Bank [2016] 76 taxmann.com 42 (Mumbai ITAT) (dt. July 04,2016) ii. Channel Guide India Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2012] 20 ITR (T) 438 (Mumbai ITAT) iii. Krishnaswamy S. Pd vs. Union of India [2006] 281 ITR 305 (SC) 6 IT7513/Mum/2010 iv. Infotech Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 30 ITR(T) 542 (Hyderabad ITAT) v. Sterling Abrasives Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer [2010] 3 taxman.com 757 (Ahmedabad ITAT) 9. Lastly, it was submitted by the Ld. Sr. Counsel that in case two views are possible, then the view in favour of the asse…

Ashok Piramal Management Corporaiton Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(1), Mumbai

Accordingly confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition though on a different ground pleaded by the ld. AR. Thus, this ground stands dismissed

ITA 4401/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deym/S. Ashok Piramal Management Asstt. Commissioner Of Corporation Limited Income Tax, Ward 6(1) Peninsula Spenta, 2Nd Floor Room No. 506, 5Th Floor Vs. Mathuradas Mills Compound Aayakar Bhavan Senapati Bapat Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aafca5278E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumauan Paite
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9

…on cogit ad impossiblia meaning thereby that the law cannot possibly compel a person to 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 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…

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. United Helicharters P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6917/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. United Helicharters Tax-10(2), Pvt Ltd Room No.432, 4Th Floor, 238, Hindustan Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Khohinoor Complex, Mumbai 400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aaacu 3352N Appellant .. Respondent

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 40Section 44ASection 9(1)(vii)

…g thereby that the law cannot possibly compel a person to do something which is impossible to perform. This Maxim is accepted by different courts of this country, including the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnaswamy S. Pd. v. Union of India [2006J 281 ITR 305 made the following observations in relation to the provisions of chapter XX-C of the Act. "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…

M/S Ludwig Pfeiffer Gypsums Structure India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3060/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu, [A.Ys : 2008-2009]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 40

…ns, the ld. AR has also placed reliance on the ratio and proposition of the following decisions : 1. Woodward Governors India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2002] 253 ITR 0745 2. Escorts Ltd. v. CIT (2002] 257 ITR 468 (Del] 5 3. SC Krishnaswamy S. Pd. V. Union of India 281 ITR 305 (2006] 4. Life Insurance Corporation of India 219 ITR 410 (1996] 5. ACIT v. Jindal Irrigation Systems Ltd. (Hyd) 56 ITD 164 ACIT v. Sri. Ramachandra 128 TTJ 408 (2010] (ITAT Chennai] 6. 7. Jagdish Malpani v. ACIT 94 TTJ 321 (ITAT Indore) 7. The ld. counsel of the Revenue, replying to the above contentions, submitted that the TDS was actually de…

Hiraco Jewellery (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 15, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7297/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)

…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 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…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Siro Clinpharm P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2876/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ISection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…gned 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 SPD v. Union of India [2006] 281 ITR 305/151 Taxman 286 (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 ex…

Rusabh Diamonds, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2840/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)

…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 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…

Siro Clinpharm P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2618/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ISection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…gned 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 SPD v. Union of India [2006] 281 ITR 305/151 Taxman 286 (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 ex…

Gitanjali Exports Corpon. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, while appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 27Section 36(1)(iii)Section 51

…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 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…

Firestone Diamond P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 139/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…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 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…

ACIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Gitanjali Exports Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, while appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7662/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 27Section 36(1)(iii)Section 51

…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 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…