Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Oxford University Press v. Commissioner of Income Tax come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 54, Section 2(47), Section 54F, Section 144B, Section 17.

Oxford University Press v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Q: How many judgments cite Oxford University Press v. Commissioner of Income Tax?

42 judgments on BharatTax cite Oxford University Press v. Commissioner of Income Tax (3 SCC 359), spanning 2004 to 2025.

3 SCC 359Supreme Court of India2001#2833 most cited

What is Oxford University Press v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

The Supreme Court holds that a purposive interpretation and harmonious construction must be applied to the provisions of the Income-tax Act. This approach is particularly important when considering claims for exemption from tax, to ensure the interpretation sub-serves the object and purpose of the law.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2004 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Oxford University Press v CIT · purposive interpretation · harmonious construction · exemption from tax · Section 54 · Section 54F · long term capital gain · statutory interpretation tax law · tax exemption claims · Section 143(3) · Section 2(47)

Also reported as

247 ITR 658115 Taxmann 69

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 54 Section 2(47)Section 54F Section 144B Section 17 Section 234B Section 234C

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

purposive interpretation section 2(47)section 54 section 54f long term capital gain transfer person total income document section 143(3)india nfac

Judgments citing Oxford University Press v. Commissioner of Income Tax

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri Prem Chand

ITTA/380/2006HC Telangana02 Feb 2012

Commnr. of Central Excise, Pondicherry vs. M/S. Acer India Ltd

C.A. No.-010185-010186 - 2003Supreme Court24 Sept 2004

For Respondent: M/s. ACER India Ltd

Section 11ASection 4

…be adhered to. Artificial rules to give the tax payer the ’breaks’ are not out of place for taxation is now not an ’impertinent intrusion into sacred rights of private property’. [See Oxford University Press Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, (2001) 3 SCC 359] Furthermore, for the purpose of interpretation of a taxing statute, the fiscal philosophy, a feel of which is necessary to gather the intent and effect of its different clauses should be applied. [See K.P. Verghese Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Another, (1981) 4 SCC 173]. A consideration of public policy may also be re…