MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32

9 SCC 1Supreme Court of India2018#121 most cited
532

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 144Section 37(1)Section 133(6)Section 201Section 201(1A)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 264asection 44aasection 264section 192section 17section 251(1)section 251(1)(a)assessee in defaultsection 201(1)section 251section 201section 44ab

Judgments citing MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32

M/S Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

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

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 43B

…ditions as stipulated under Section 36(1)(va) read with Explanation before claiming deduction from its income. The decision of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) v. Dilip Kumar & Co. reported in (2018) 9 SCC 1 is relevant . The recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramnath & Co. v. CIT reported in (2020) 116 taxmann.com 885(SC) is relevant (refer para 17 to 20) , which is reproduced hereunder: 30 Dilip Kumar & Co. 17. The core question referred for authoritative pronouncement to the Constitution Bench in the case of Dilip Kumar & Co. (s…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Indu Projects Limited, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed therefore

ITA 189/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Md.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

…ce to say, such a course of liberal interpretation is no more available while dealing with the Income Tax Act’s provisions as per honourable apex court’s recent constitutional bench’s decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 settling the law that a fiscal statute as well as an exemption clause incorporated therein ought to be construed in stricter parlance only. Their lordships make it clear that benefit of doubt in case of taxing provision goes to the tax payer and vice versa in an instance of an exemption provision. The assessee’s first argument is rejected therefore.…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Indu Projects Limited, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed therefore

ITA 188/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Md.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

…ce to say, such a course of liberal interpretation is no more available while dealing with the Income Tax Act’s provisions as per honourable apex court’s recent constitutional bench’s decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 settling the law that a fiscal statute as well as an exemption clause incorporated therein ought to be construed in stricter parlance only. Their lordships make it clear that benefit of doubt in case of taxing provision goes to the tax payer and vice versa in an instance of an exemption provision. The assessee’s first argument is rejected therefore.…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Indu Projects Limited, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed therefore

ITA 187/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Md.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

…ce to say, such a course of liberal interpretation is no more available while dealing with the Income Tax Act’s provisions as per honourable apex court’s recent constitutional bench’s decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 settling the law that a fiscal statute as well as an exemption clause incorporated therein ought to be construed in stricter parlance only. Their lordships make it clear that benefit of doubt in case of taxing provision goes to the tax payer and vice versa in an instance of an exemption provision. The assessee’s first argument is rejected therefore.…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Indu Projects Limited, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed therefore

ITA 186/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Md.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

…ce to say, such a course of liberal interpretation is no more available while dealing with the Income Tax Act’s provisions as per honourable apex court’s recent constitutional bench’s decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 settling the law that a fiscal statute as well as an exemption clause incorporated therein ought to be construed in stricter parlance only. Their lordships make it clear that benefit of doubt in case of taxing provision goes to the tax payer and vice versa in an instance of an exemption provision. The assessee’s first argument is rejected therefore.…

The Secunderbad Club, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward -10(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 166/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.Jeevanlal, DR
Section 143(3)

…well nor u/s. 2(24)(vii) defining “income” in the very account, section 71 of the Act would not apply in isolation. We further deem it proper to refer to hon'ble apex court’s recent larger bench decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) that provisions of a taxing statutes have to be strictly construed only. We next quote CIT Vs. Hariprasad and Co. P. Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC) that a loss arising from a head of income not chargeable to tax is not eligible to be set off against a taxable source as follows : “ It may be remembered that the concept of carry forward of loss does…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 481/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Sri B. Shanti Kumar &For Respondent: Sri Solgy Kottaram CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…ce to say, such a course of liberal interpretation is no more available while dealing with the Income Tax Act’s provisions as per honourable apex court’s recent constitutional bench’s decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 settling the law that a fiscal statute as well as an exemption clause incorporated Page 14 of 18 ITA Nos 2051 and 2052 of 2018 and ITA No.481 of 2020 Gayatri Projects Ltd Hyderabad therein ought to be construed in stricter parlance only. Their lordships make it clear that benefit of doubt in case of taxing provision goes to the tax payer and vice v…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2052/HYD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Sri B. Shanti Kumar &For Respondent: Sri Solgy Kottaram CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…ce to say, such a course of liberal interpretation is no more available while dealing with the Income Tax Act’s provisions as per honourable apex court’s recent constitutional bench’s decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 settling the law that a fiscal statute as well as an exemption clause incorporated Page 14 of 18 ITA Nos 2051 and 2052 of 2018 and ITA No.481 of 2020 Gayatri Projects Ltd Hyderabad therein ought to be construed in stricter parlance only. Their lordships make it clear that benefit of doubt in case of taxing provision goes to the tax payer and vice v…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2051/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Sri B. Shanti Kumar &For Respondent: Sri Solgy Kottaram CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…ce to say, such a course of liberal interpretation is no more available while dealing with the Income Tax Act’s provisions as per honourable apex court’s recent constitutional bench’s decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 settling the law that a fiscal statute as well as an exemption clause incorporated Page 14 of 18 ITA Nos 2051 and 2052 of 2018 and ITA No.481 of 2020 Gayatri Projects Ltd Hyderabad therein ought to be construed in stricter parlance only. Their lordships make it clear that benefit of doubt in case of taxing provision goes to the tax payer and vice v…

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…f the statute. There is no equity in tax laws and exemption/deduction provisions are to be strictly construed. The decision of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) v. Dilip Kumar & Co. reported in (2018) 9 SCC 1 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramnath& Co. v. CIT reported in (2020) 116 taxmann.com 885(SC)(refer para 17 to 20) are relavant . Admittedly , in the instant case the aforesaid sum of Rs. 6,31,788/- being employee contribution towards PF was not deposited by assessee to the credit of employees with PF Funds within due date presc…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Hyderabad vs. Stouvant Pittie, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 691/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri G.Rama Mohan, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.Sunil Goutam, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…more res integra in light of the tribunal’s Special Bench decision in Sushila M.Jhaveri case (supra). And that we ought to adopt stricter construction principle only whilst deciding a deduction claim in light of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB)(SC). 5. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant former argument since the hon'ble jurisdictional high court (supra) has already decided the very issue in assessee’s favour and against the department thereby overruling the Special Bench’s decision. No contrary opinion has come either from hon'ble apex court or a larger bench; as the case may be. W…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Height Insurance Services Ltd

ITAT/4/2020HC Calcutta16 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…and to support such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) Versus Union of India (UOI) and Others 48. 47 (2020) 9 SCC 1 48 (2017) 15 SCC 702 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 126 of 300 47. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in APO No. 95 of 2020, Birla Corporation Limited submitted that the company is a public limited company, it is listed in BSE and NSE and…

Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed therefore

ITA 1342/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Shri B. Shanti Kumar and Shri Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Kottaram
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ce to say, such a course of liberal interpretation is no more available while dealing with the Income Tax Act’s provisions as per honourable apex court’s recent constitutional bench’s decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 settling the law that a fiscal statute as well as an exemption clause incorporated therein ought to be construed in stricter parlance only. Their lordships make it clear that benefit of doubt in case of taxing provision goes to the tax payer and vice versa in an instance of an exemption provision. The assessee’s first argument is rejected therefore.…

Gayatri Projects Limited., Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4)., Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed therefore

ITA 1341/HYD/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Shri B. Shanti Kumar and Shri Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Kottaram
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ce to say, such a course of liberal interpretation is no more available while dealing with the Income Tax Act’s provisions as per honourable apex court’s recent constitutional bench’s decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 settling the law that a fiscal statute as well as an exemption clause incorporated therein ought to be construed in stricter parlance only. Their lordships make it clear that benefit of doubt in case of taxing provision goes to the tax payer and vice versa in an instance of an exemption provision. The assessee’s first argument is rejected therefore.…

Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed therefore

ITA 1340/HYD/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Shri B. Shanti Kumar and Shri Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Kottaram
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ce to say, such a course of liberal interpretation is no more available while dealing with the Income Tax Act’s provisions as per honourable apex court’s recent constitutional bench’s decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 settling the law that a fiscal statute as well as an exemption clause incorporated therein ought to be construed in stricter parlance only. Their lordships make it clear that benefit of doubt in case of taxing provision goes to the tax payer and vice versa in an instance of an exemption provision. The assessee’s first argument is rejected therefore.…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/26/2021HC Calcutta08 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…nswer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same proposition that pr…

Principal CIT-14, Kolkata vs. Shri Vishwanath Gupta

ITA/21/2020HC Calcutta07 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…and to support such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) Versus Union of India (UOI) and Others 48. 47 (2020) 9 SCC 1 48 (2017) 15 SCC 702 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 126 of 300 47. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in APO No. 95 of 2020, Birla Corporation Limited submitted that the company is a public limited company, it is listed in BSE and NSE and…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Neetu Gupta, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 444/HYD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Central Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Summit Hyderabad. Communications Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan : Aajcs8426Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year – 2010-11 Acit, Central Circle – 3(1), Vs. Smt. Neetu Gupta, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aippg2403E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai. Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Two Revenue’S Appeals Involving As Many Assessees M/S. Summit Communications Pvt Ltd & Smt.Neetu Gupta, For A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Arise From The Cit(A)-11, Hyderabad’S Separate Orders, Both Dt.31.08.2021 Passed In Case Nos.10094 & 10183/2019-20, Respectively; Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153C Of The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…material only. We find no substance in the Revenue’s instant arguments since all the three foregoing connotations carry different connotations as per the principle of stricter interpretation in light of case law Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB) (SC). These Revenue’s twin appeals as well as its arguments supporting impugned satisfaction note(s) fail accordingly. 5. These two Revenue’s appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 9th December, 2021. (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderaba…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Summit Communications Private Limited, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 443/HYD/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Central Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Summit Hyderabad. Communications Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan : Aajcs8426Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year – 2010-11 Acit, Central Circle – 3(1), Vs. Smt. Neetu Gupta, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aippg2403E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai. Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Two Revenue’S Appeals Involving As Many Assessees M/S. Summit Communications Pvt Ltd & Smt.Neetu Gupta, For A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Arise From The Cit(A)-11, Hyderabad’S Separate Orders, Both Dt.31.08.2021 Passed In Case Nos.10094 & 10183/2019-20, Respectively; Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153C Of The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…material only. We find no substance in the Revenue’s instant arguments since all the three foregoing connotations carry different connotations as per the principle of stricter interpretation in light of case law Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB) (SC). These Revenue’s twin appeals as well as its arguments supporting impugned satisfaction note(s) fail accordingly. 5. These two Revenue’s appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 9th December, 2021. (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderaba…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Gvpr Engineers Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1577/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2013-14 Gvpr Engineers Limited, The Asst.Commissioner Of C/O. M. Anandam & Co., Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, Circle 2(2), 7A, Surya Towers, Hyderabad. S.P. Road, Secunderabad – 500003. Pan : Aaacg7614F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gvpr Engineers Limited, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. M. Anandam & Co., Of Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, Circle 2(2), 7A, Surya Towers, Hyderabad. S.P. Road, Secunderabad – 500003. Pan : Aaacg7614F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Gvpr Engineers Limited, Of Income Tax, C/O. M. Anandam & Co., Circle 2(2), Chartered Accountants, Hyderabad. 7A, Surya Towers, S.P. Road, Secunderabad – 500003. Pan : Aaacg7614F (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross Appellant) Ita Nos.1576 & 1577/Hyd/2017 Gpvr Engineers Limited Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Gvpr Engineers Limited, Of Income Tax, C/O. M. Anandam & Co., Circle 2(2), Chartered Accountants, Hyderabad. 7A, Surya Towers, S.P. Road, Secunderabad – 500003. Pan : Aaacg7614F (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar Revenue By: Smt. D. Komali Krishna Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Two Revenue & Assessee’S Cross Appeals I.E., Ita Nos.1576 & 1617/Hyd/2017 For A.Y. 2013-14 & Ita No.1577 & 1618/Hyd/2017 For A.Y. 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Hyderabad’S Separate Orders Dt.30.06.2017 & 29.06.2017, Passed In Case Nos.0075 & 0436/2016-17, Respectively, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. D. Komali Krishna
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ce to say, such a course of liberal interpretation is no more available while dealing with the Income Tax Act’s provisions as per honourable apex court’s recent constitutional bench’s decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 settling the law that a fiscal statute as well as an exemption clause incorporated therein ought to be construed in stricter parlance only. Their lordships make it clear that benefit of doubt in case of taxing provision goes to the tax payer and vice versa in an instance of an exemption provision. The assessee’s first argument is rejected therefore.…