Mahim Patram Private Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

3 SCC 668Reported decision2007#9678 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2024.

Judgments citing Mahim Patram Private Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-1 vs. OJJUS MEDICARE PVT. LTD.

ITA/52/2024HC Delhi03 Apr 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

…g a machinery provision, the courts would interpret a provision in such a way that it would give meaning to the charging provisions and that the machinery provisions are liberally construed by the courts. In Mahim Patram (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [(2007) 3 SCC 668] this Court has observed that: (SCC p. 680, paras 25-26) “25. A taxing statute indisputably is to be strictly construed. (See J. Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P. [(2006) 12 SCC 607 : (2006) 13 Scale 27] ) It is, however, also well settled that the machinery provisions for calculating the tax or the procedure for its calculation are to be constr…

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

C.A. No.-000911-000911 - 2022Supreme Court06 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

…provision, the courts would interpret a provision in such a way that it would give meaning to the charging provisions and that the machinery provisions are liberally construed by the courts. In Mahim Patram (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [(2007) 3 SCC 668] this Court has observed that: (SCC p. 680, paras 25-26) “25. A taxing statute indisputably is to be strictly construed. (See J. Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P. [(2006) 12 SCC 607]) It is, however, also well settled that the machinery provisions for calculating the tax or the procedure for its calculation are to be construed b…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

ITA/705/2018HC Karnataka31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ITA No.705 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) CENTRAL CIRCLE, C. R. BUILDING QUEEN’S ROAD BENGALUR – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C. R. BUILDING QUEEN’S ROAD BENGALUR – 560 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND .K .V- ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. G LAKSHMI ARUNA NO.8, ASHOKNAGAR HAVAMABAVI SURUGUPPA ROAD BELLARY – 583 101 PAN:AFJPA 5974P …RESPONDENT…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

ITA/704/2018HC Karnataka31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ITA No.704 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) CENTRAL CIRCLE, C. R. BUILDING QUEEN’S ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), C. R. BUILDING QUEEN’S ROAD, BENGALUR – 560 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND .K .V- ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI GALI JANARDHANA REDDY NO.8, ASHOKNAGAR HAVAMABAVI, SURUGUPPA ROAD BELLARY – 583 101, PAN:AFBPR 9737D. …RE…

M/S RAILWAY CO-OP BANK LTD ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

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

ITA 1542/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K., JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used". (see : CIT v. Kasturi and Sons Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 24 (SC) ; AIR 1999 SC 1275 and Mahim Patram (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2007] 3 SCC 668 [See : Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Justice G. P. Singh, 14th edition, page 879]. Therefore, the question of going into intention or object behind the provision, viz., section 36(1)(viia) of the Act does not arise. 10. The submission that even in the absence of any provision, the assessee is entitled to deduction cannot be accepted. The…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/256/2011HC Karnataka24 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used.” [SEE:’COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS VS. KASTURI AND SONS LTD.’, AIR 1999 SC 1275 and ‘MAHIM PATRAM (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA (2007) 3 SCC 668] [See: PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, JUSTICE G.P.SINGH, 14TH EDITION, PAGE 879]. Therefore, the question of going into intention or object behind the provision viz., Section 36(1) (viia) of the Act does not arise. 10. The submission that even in the absence of any provision, the assessee is entitled to deduction cannot be ac…

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

ITTA/455/2017HC Telangana06 Jul 2017

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

…tion of forfeited amount of ITC in terms of amendment carried out under the JVAT Act. 23. The learned Advocate General further while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahim Patram(P) Ltd V. Union of India, (2007) 3 SCC 668, has contended inter-alia that even if there does not exist any machinery provision for giving effect to the amendments carried out under the JVAT Act, the said amendment cannot be said to be unworkable. 24. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone 44…

S.l. Shiva Raj vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,

ITTA/134/2016HC Telangana14 Jul 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

…tion of forfeited amount of ITC in terms of amendment carried out under the JVAT Act. 23. The learned Advocate General further while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahim Patram(P) Ltd V. Union of India, (2007) 3 SCC 668, has contended inter-alia that even if there does not exist any machinery provision for giving effect to the amendments carried out under the JVAT Act, the said amendment cannot be said to be unworkable. 24. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone 44…

GOVIND AGARWAL. HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 826/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…rovision, the courts would interpret a provision in such a way that it would give meaning to the charging provisions and that the machinery provisions are liberally construed by the courts. In Mahim Patram Private Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 668 this Court has observed that: "20. A taxing statute indisputably is to be strictly construed. [See J Srinivasa Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., 2006 (13)SCALE 27 }. It is, however, also well-settled that the machinery provisions for calculating the tax or the procedure for its calculation are to be construed by ordinary 876,828,4566,4547,21…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA

C.A. No.-003958-003958 - 2014Supreme Court12 Mar 2014
Section 132Section 158B

…courts would interpret a provision in such a way that it would give meaning to the charging provisions and that the machinery provisions are liberally construed by the courts. In Mahim Patram Private Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 668 this Court has observed that: “20. A taxing statute indisputably is to be strictly con- strued. [See J. Srinivasa Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., 2006(13)SCALE 27 ]. It is, however, also well- settled that the machinery provisions for calculating the tax or the procedure for its calculation are to be con- strued by ordinary rule…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA

C.A. No.-003958-003958 - 2014Supreme Court12 Mar 2014
Section 132Section 158B

…courts would interpret a provision in such a way that it would give meaning to the charging provisions and that the machinery provisions are liberally construed by the courts. In Mahim Patram Private Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 668 this Court has observed that: “20. A taxing statute indisputably is to be strictly con- strued. [See J. Srinivasa Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., 2006(13)SCALE 27 ]. It is, however, also well- settled that the machinery provisions for calculating the tax or the procedure for its calculation are to be con- strued by ordinary rule…

Mahim Patram Private Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (3 SCC 668) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax