Madura Chit & Investment (P) Ltd. v. ITO

208 ITR 228High Court1994#10332 most cited

What is Madura Chit & Investment (P) Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Instructions and guidelines issued by tax authorities cannot override specific provisions of the Income Tax Act.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2019.

Also referred to as

Madura Chit & Investment v ITO · Income Tax Act · instructions and guidelines · overriding provisions · delegated authority · Parliament

Judgments citing Madura Chit & Investment (P) Ltd. v. ITO

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 278/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n principles of law as the same would really amount to giving power to delegated authority to even amend the provisions of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised. In case of Madura Chit & Investment (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (1994) 208 ITR 228(Mad) it is held that instructions and guidelines cannot override the specific provision of the Income Tax Act. In case of CIT V Sirpur Paper Mills (1999) 237 ITR 41(SC) and CIT V Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd (2001) 252 ITR 576 (Bom) it is held that notification issued by the CBDT cannot curtail the scope of deduction granted by the Income Tax A…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 03, Guwahati vs. Numaligarh Refinery Limited, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 28/GTY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n principles of law as the same would really amount to giving power to delegated authority to even amend the provisions of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised. In case of Madura Chit & Investment (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (1994) 208 ITR 228(Mad) it is held that instructions and guidelines cannot override the specific provision of the Income Tax Act. In case of CIT V Sirpur Paper Mills (1999) 237 ITR 41(SC) and CIT V Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd (2001) 252 ITR 576 (Bom) it is held that notification issued by the CBDT cannot curtail the scope of deduction granted by the Income Tax A…

Numaligarh Refinery Limited, Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 03, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 27/GTY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n principles of law as the same would really amount to giving power to delegated authority to even amend the provisions of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised. In case of Madura Chit & Investment (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (1994) 208 ITR 228(Mad) it is held that instructions and guidelines cannot override the specific provision of the Income Tax Act. In case of CIT V Sirpur Paper Mills (1999) 237 ITR 41(SC) and CIT V Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd (2001) 252 ITR 576 (Bom) it is held that notification issued by the CBDT cannot curtail the scope of deduction granted by the Income Tax A…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 98/GTY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n principles of law as the same would really amount to giving power to delegated authority to even amend the provisions of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised. In case of Madura Chit & Investment (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (1994) 208 ITR 228(Mad) it is held that instructions and guidelines cannot override the specific provision of the Income Tax Act. In case of CIT V Sirpur Paper Mills (1999) 237 ITR 41(SC) and CIT V Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd (2001) 252 ITR 576 (Bom) it is held that notification issued by the CBDT cannot curtail the scope of deduction granted by the Income Tax A…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 97/GTY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n principles of law as the same would really amount to giving power to delegated authority to even amend the provisions of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised. In case of Madura Chit & Investment (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (1994) 208 ITR 228(Mad) it is held that instructions and guidelines cannot override the specific provision of the Income Tax Act. In case of CIT V Sirpur Paper Mills (1999) 237 ITR 41(SC) and CIT V Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd (2001) 252 ITR 576 (Bom) it is held that notification issued by the CBDT cannot curtail the scope of deduction granted by the Income Tax A…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 90/GTY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n principles of law as the same would really amount to giving power to delegated authority to even amend the provisions of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised. In case of Madura Chit & Investment (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (1994) 208 ITR 228(Mad) it is held that instructions and guidelines cannot override the specific provision of the Income Tax Act. In case of CIT V Sirpur Paper Mills (1999) 237 ITR 41(SC) and CIT V Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd (2001) 252 ITR 576 (Bom) it is held that notification issued by the CBDT cannot curtail the scope of deduction granted by the Income Tax A…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 89/GTY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n principles of law as the same would really amount to giving power to delegated authority to even amend the provisions of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised. In case of Madura Chit & Investment (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (1994) 208 ITR 228(Mad) it is held that instructions and guidelines cannot override the specific provision of the Income Tax Act. In case of CIT V Sirpur Paper Mills (1999) 237 ITR 41(SC) and CIT V Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd (2001) 252 ITR 576 (Bom) it is held that notification issued by the CBDT cannot curtail the scope of deduction granted by the Income Tax A…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 8/GTY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n principles of law as the same would really amount to giving power to delegated authority to even amend the provisions of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised. In case of Madura Chit & Investment (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (1994) 208 ITR 228(Mad) it is held that instructions and guidelines cannot override the specific provision of the Income Tax Act. In case of CIT V Sirpur Paper Mills (1999) 237 ITR 41(SC) and CIT V Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd (2001) 252 ITR 576 (Bom) it is held that notification issued by the CBDT cannot curtail the scope of deduction granted by the Income Tax A…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 7/GTY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n principles of law as the same would really amount to giving power to delegated authority to even amend the provisions of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised. In case of Madura Chit & Investment (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (1994) 208 ITR 228(Mad) it is held that instructions and guidelines cannot override the specific provision of the Income Tax Act. In case of CIT V Sirpur Paper Mills (1999) 237 ITR 41(SC) and CIT V Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd (2001) 252 ITR 576 (Bom) it is held that notification issued by the CBDT cannot curtail the scope of deduction granted by the Income Tax A…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 5/GTY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…n principles of law as the same would really amount to giving power to delegated authority to even amend the provisions of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised. In case of Madura Chit & Investment (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (1994) 208 ITR 228(Mad) it is held that instructions and guidelines cannot override the specific provision of the Income Tax Act. In case of CIT V Sirpur Paper Mills (1999) 237 ITR 41(SC) and CIT V Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd (2001) 252 ITR 576 (Bom) it is held that notification issued by the CBDT cannot curtail the scope of deduction granted by the Income Tax A…

Madura Chit & Investment (P) Ltd. v. ITO (208 ITR 228) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax