MoulabiHussain Haj v. State of Gujarat

6 SCC 672Reported decision2004#25332 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing MoulabiHussain Haj v. State of Gujarat

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Rashtrotthana Parishat, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1666/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Sri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CA

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 250Section 270ASection 274

…served Buller, J. in Jones v. Smart 1785 (1) TR 44 : 99 ER 963 (ER p. 967) "can in no case be supplied by a court of law, for that would be to make laws". The principles were examined in detail in Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umarji v. State of Gujarat [2004] 6 SCC 672. 21. The golden rule for construing all written instruments has been thus stated : "The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to…

DCIT, CC-3(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Ankit Metal & Power Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1493/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…M/s Ankit Metal & Power Ltd.., AY 2013-14 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1493/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 DCIT, CC-3(3), Kolkata Vs M/s Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. . (PAN: AAECA 5230 B) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 23.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement 28.10.2021 For the Appellant Shri Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT Shri Gourav Kanojia,CITTP For the Respondent Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate ORDER Per Shri A. T. Varkey, JM: This is an appeal…

ITO 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Rainbow Investment Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3431/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…. ‘Casus Omissus’, a Latin word, means “the case omitted”. Casus Omissus can in no case be applied by a Court of Law, for that it would amount to making of the law by court as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MoulabiHussain Haj Vs. State of Gujarat (2004) 6 SCC 672. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.R. Venkatchalam v Dy. Transport Commissioner (1977 (2) SCC 273) observed that courts must avoid the danger of a priori determination of the meaning of a provision based on their own preconceived notions of ideological structure or scheme into which the provision to be interpreted is somewhat fitted. The Hon’ble Apex…