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 366,470 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

Sri Santosh A Shetty vs. The State of Karantaka

WP/29668/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…F INDIA AND ANOTHER. 52.AIR 1970 SC 192: SHRI. PRITHVI COTTON MILLS LTD, ETC Vs. BROACH BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS. 53.AIR 1957 SC 628 : R.M.D. CHAMARBAUGWALLA AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 54.(2017) 9 SCC 1: SHAYARA BANO Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. 55.WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO. 1047 OF 2019: HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS. 56.(2001) 4 SCC 262: KULWANT KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. GURDIAL SINGH MANN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS. 57.(1998) 7 SUPREME COURT CASES 66: NAT…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Kesoram Industries Ltd

ITAT/17/2020HC Calcutta13 Jan 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

…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…

Shweta Chhawchharia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-12

ITAT/15/2020HC Calcutta21 Dec 2020

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA

…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…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Kolkata vs. Electrocast Sales India Ltd

ITAT/11/2020HC Calcutta18 Dec 2020

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA

…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…

Geetha Pandit Rao and Anr vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

WP/226494/2020HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…of the decision. There is no fixed formula for the expression of legislative intent to give retrospectivity to an enactment…." 38 25. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ NARULA v. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2004)9 SCC 1 has observed: "Good governance is only in the hands of good men. No doubt, what is good or bad is not for the court to decide: but the court can always indicate the constitutional ethos on goodness, good governance and purity in administration and remind the constitutional functionaries to preserve, protect and promote the same." 26.…

Smt Geetha Pandit Rao vs. The Government of Karnataka

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

WP/7717/2020HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…of the decision. There is no fixed formula for the expression of legislative intent to give retrospectivity to an enactment…." 38 25. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ NARULA v. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2004)9 SCC 1 has observed: "Good governance is only in the hands of good men. No doubt, what is good or bad is not for the court to decide: but the court can always indicate the constitutional ethos on goodness, good governance and purity in administration and remind the constitutional functionaries to preserve, protect and promote the same." 26.…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S Karnataka State Financial

ITA/463/2018HC Karnataka12 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…F INDIA AND ANOTHER. 52.AIR 1970 SC 192: SHRI. PRITHVI COTTON MILLS LTD, ETC Vs. BROACH BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS. 53.AIR 1957 SC 628 : R.M.D. CHAMARBAUGWALLA AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 54.(2017) 9 SCC 1: SHAYARA BANO Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. 55.WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO. 1047 OF 2019: HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS. 56.(2001) 4 SCC 262: KULWANT KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. GURDIAL SINGH MANN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS. 57.(1998) 7 SUPREME COURT CASES 66: NAT…

Smt. Padma Rajagopalan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(5), Bangalore

ITA 629/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

For Respondent: Shri Prashanth G.S, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

…is very clear and that this being a benefit given to the assessee, it requires a strict interpretation. In this regard, she has referred to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. and Ors [reported in (2018) 9 SCC 1] The Hon'ble First Bench considered the said argument in the said judgment and held in favour of the assessee. The relevant portions of the decision of the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in the case of C.Aryama Sundaram are as hereunder : "14. Under Section 54(1) of the said Act, the capital gain arising from transfer of a residential house is not…

Master Balachandar Krishnan vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/8788/2020HC Karnataka29 Sept 2020

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

…mdar’s case (supra). It has been held that Article 15(5) of the Constitution does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution and is constitutionally valid, vide Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and others vs. Union of India [(2014) 9 SCC 1] (Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust). 147. Clause 6 of Article 15 which has been inserted by the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2014 with effect from 14.01.2019 states, the State can make a special provision for advancement of any economically weaker Sections of citizens, other than the classes mentioned in Clauses (4) and (5) of Ar…

Srinivasa Fashins Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-6(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1396/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.09.2020
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…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 pres…

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/3/2020HC Telangana25 Aug 2020

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

…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…

Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5225/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…deficiency. In support of its aforesaid contention reliance was placed by the ld. D.R on the judgment of the ―Constitution bench‖ of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company and Others (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC). 25. Per Contra, the ld. A.R took us through the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‘ble Apex Court and submitted, that it was observed by the court that strict interpretation would not encompass within its fold strict literalism, as the same would therein result in ignoring an important aspect that is ―apparent legislative intent‖. It was averred by…

ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai

ITA 5912/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…deficiency. In support of its aforesaid contention reliance was placed by the ld. D.R on the judgment of the ―Constitution bench‖ of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company and Others (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC). 25. Per Contra, the ld. A.R took us through the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‘ble Apex Court and submitted, that it was observed by the court that strict interpretation would not encompass within its fold strict literalism, as the same would therein result in ignoring an important aspect that is ―apparent legislative intent‖. It was averred by…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S United Spirits Ltd (in the Case of Central

ITA/124/2012HC Karnataka23 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 96

…subject matter of counter claim filed by defendant Nos.4 to 7, defendant Nos.2 and 3. She would lastly submit to this court that plaintiff’s father C.Ramaswamy died intestate leaving vast 1 (2020) 9 SCC 1 33 properties which were admittedly fetching huge rents. Plaintiff’s brothers namely, defendant Nos.2 and 3 and also deceased brother Narayan had absolutely no independent earnings. Plaintiff’s brothers in the absence of independent income have utilized surplus income which was received in the form of rents and have purchased Schedule-B…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

…or said deduction . Any ambiguity in the provision is to be held in favour of Revenue. Reference is drawn to 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). It is profitable at this stage to refer to statutory Provision as are enshrined in Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act as it stood for relevant ay viz. ay: 2013-14 , is reproduced hereunder:- “ Other deductions. 36…

Ramnath and Co vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-002506-002509 - 2020Supreme Court05 Jun 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 80

…d from India. 10.2. As regards the principles of interpretation, the learned senior counsel for revenue has strongly relied upon the Constitution Bench decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Co. and Ors: (2018) 9 SCC 1 to submit that it is now settled beyond 35 doubt that taxing statutes are subject to the rule of strict interpretation, leaving no room for any intendment; and the benefit of ambiguity in case of an exemption notification or an exemption clause must go in favour of the revenue, as exemptions from taxation have a tendency to increase the burden on…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3451/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 801ASection 80ISection 9(2)

…it over the judgment of the BOA. By catena of judgments the courts have held that the approval accorded by such regulatory boards in development schemes cannot be questioned by tax authorities. Reline in this behalf is placed on: - -ApolloTyres Vs. CIT (2002) 9 SCC 1(SC) -Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (2008) 12 SCC 612 (SC) -CIT Vs. HCL Commet System & Service Ltd. 305 ITR 409 (SC) -Marmo Classic Vs. Commissioner of Customs [2002 (143) ELT 153(Trib.--Mumbai] affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in [2003 (152) ELT A85(SC)]; -Lokash Chemical Works Vs. M. S. Mehta 1981 (8) ELT 235; -Tital Medical System Pvt. Ltd. V…

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Koundinya Educational Society

ITTA/179/2019HC Andhra Pradesh29 Oct 2019

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

…14 SCC 327 107. (2016) 11 SCC 31 108. (2019) 1 SCC 1 CJ, MSM,J and DVSS,J W.P.Nos.13203 of 2020 & batch 5 109. (2016) 11 SCC 31 110. (1990) 1 SCC 328 111. (1972) 2 SCC 788 112. (1994) Supp (3) SCC 340 113. (2021) 7 SCC 413 114. (2017) 9 SCC 1 115. (2019) 3 SCC 39 116. 1952 SCR 889 117. 1954 SCR 558 118. (1973) 10 SCC 119. W.P.(C) 11616/2015, CM APPLs.31234/15, 3033/16 & 10640/17 Dated 18.03.2019 120. WP(C) Nos.8904/2009, 7735/2007,7317/2009 and 9246/2009 dated 11.02.2020 121. (1955) CriLJ 254 122. (1994) 4 SCC 602 123. (2015) 1 SCC 1 124. [1994] 1 AC 486 (HL) 1…

Shri Lakshmi Ram Thakuria, Guwahati vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 194/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Shri Lakshmi Ram Thakuria Ito, Ward-3(2), Guwahati On Behalf Of Prop. M/S Charu Engineering Industries, Vs. Thakurias Novelty, Mother Teresa Road, Nrengi,Guwahati-26 (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./Pan No. Acbpt9469P M/S Charu Engineering The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Industries Guwahati M/S Charu Innovation 7Th Aaykarbhawan, Floor, Department Industries, On Vs. G.S. Road, Guwahati- Behalf Of Prop. Shri Lakshmi 781005 Ram Thakuria, Thakurias Novelty, Mother Teresa Road, Narengi, Guwahati-26 .. (Appellant) ( Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./Pan No. Acbpt9469P The Dy. Commissioner O Income Tax Officer, On Behalf Of Prop. M/S Charu Circle-3, Guwahati, Engineering Industries, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, Vs. Thakurias Novelty, Mother G.S. Road, Guwahti-781005 Teresa Road, Nrengi,Guwahati-26 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Lakshmiramthakuria The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Guwahati, Prop-Charu Engineering Aayakar Bhawan, Industries Thakuria Novelties, Vs. Christianbasti, Forest Gate, Guwahati, Pin- Pin-781005 (Assam) 781026 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Lakshmiramthakuria The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Guwahati, Prop-Charu Engineering Aayakar Bhawan, Industries Thakuria Novelties, Vs. Christianbasti, Forest Gate, Guwahati, Pin- Pin-781005 (Assam) 781026 .. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 801ESection 801E(5)Section 80I

…ction 80-IC was enacted, the irresistible conclusion would be to grant 100 per cent. deduction of the profits and gains even from the year when there is substantial expansion in the existing unit. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) v. DILIP KUMAR AND CO. [2018] 9 SCC 1 applied. The court must give effect to the provisions of section 80-IC by reading various provisions conjointly. Held accordingly, (i) that an undertaking or an enterprise which had set up a new unit between January 7, 2003 and April 1, 2012 in the State of Himachal Pradesh of the nature mentioned in section 80-IC(2)(ii) would be entitled to deduct…

Shri Lakshmi Ram Thakuria, Guwahati vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 193/GTY/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Shri Lakshmi Ram Thakuria Ito, Ward-3(2), Guwahati On Behalf Of Prop. M/S Charu Engineering Industries, Vs. Thakurias Novelty, Mother Teresa Road, Nrengi,Guwahati-26 (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./Pan No. Acbpt9469P M/S Charu Engineering The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Industries Guwahati M/S Charu Innovation 7Th Aaykarbhawan, Floor, Department Industries, On Vs. G.S. Road, Guwahati- Behalf Of Prop. Shri Lakshmi 781005 Ram Thakuria, Thakurias Novelty, Mother Teresa Road, Narengi, Guwahati-26 .. (Appellant) ( Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./Pan No. Acbpt9469P The Dy. Commissioner O Income Tax Officer, On Behalf Of Prop. M/S Charu Circle-3, Guwahati, Engineering Industries, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, Vs. Thakurias Novelty, Mother G.S. Road, Guwahti-781005 Teresa Road, Nrengi,Guwahati-26 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Lakshmiramthakuria The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Guwahati, Prop-Charu Engineering Aayakar Bhawan, Industries Thakuria Novelties, Vs. Christianbasti, Forest Gate, Guwahati, Pin- Pin-781005 (Assam) 781026 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Lakshmiramthakuria The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Guwahati, Prop-Charu Engineering Aayakar Bhawan, Industries Thakuria Novelties, Vs. Christianbasti, Forest Gate, Guwahati, Pin- Pin-781005 (Assam) 781026 .. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 801ESection 801E(5)Section 80I

…ction 80-IC was enacted, the irresistible conclusion would be to grant 100 per cent. deduction of the profits and gains even from the year when there is substantial expansion in the existing unit. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) v. DILIP KUMAR AND CO. [2018] 9 SCC 1 applied. The court must give effect to the provisions of section 80-IC by reading various provisions conjointly. Held accordingly, (i) that an undertaking or an enterprise which had set up a new unit between January 7, 2003 and April 1, 2012 in the State of Himachal Pradesh of the nature mentioned in section 80-IC(2)(ii) would be entitled to deduct…