Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu

255 ITR 147Supreme Court of India2002#852 most cited

What is Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu authority for?

The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. When the words of a statute are plain and unambiguous, they must be given effect as they are, and the consequences of such interpretation cannot alter the clear meaning.

123

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu · 255 ITR 147 · SC 2002 · statutory interpretation · plain meaning rule · legislative intent · unambiguous language · literal construction · effect to each word · Section 143(3) · Section 263

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 142(1)Section 234BSection 143(2)Section 250Section 260ASection 37

Issues it is cited on

price riggingpreponderance of probabilitybogus long term capital gainbogus ltcgpenny stockput to usesection 41section 10(38)entry operatorbook profitsliable to taxaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), RAJKOT , RAJKOT

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 196/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 06/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Office [(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 30.03.2023 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…idered in the context in which they are made and in the light of the questions that were before the court. The Hon'ble apex court has held so in the case of CIT vs Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. 198 ITR 297 (SC). In the case of Padma Sundra Rao v State of TN 255 ITR 147(SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down that a ratio laid down by the Court have to be read in the context of the entire facts leading to the said ratio. 44. In view of our elaborate discussion as above, we hold that the assessee cannot derive any benefit from the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Shreeji Prints P. Ld. (supra), to th…

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the order of the Ld

ITA 194/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35ASection 40A(3)

…sidered in the context in which they are made and in the light of the questions that were before the court. The Hon’ble apex court has held so in the case of CIT vs Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd.198 ITR 297 (SC). In the case of Padma Sundra Rao v State of TN 255 ITR 147(SC) the Hon’ble Apex Court had laid down that a ratio laid down by the Court have to be read in the context of the entire facts leading to the said ratio. 44. In view of our elaborate discussion as above, we hold that the assessee cannot derive any benefit from the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Shreeji Prints P. Ld. (supra), to th…

S.C., JOHNSON PVT. LTD.,GURGAON HARYANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 7(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1850/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2006-07
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

…(f) At Page 10 to 21 of the Assessment order (Point 5.2.6(iii) & (vii) and\n5.2.1(i), (page no. 70-81 of the Appeal Set) the Ld. AO rejected the reliance of\nthe Assessee in case of McDowell & Co. Ltd vs CTO, 154 ITR 148\nPadamdasuna Rao vs State of Tamilnadu 255 ITR 147\nRaihi Commodities Limited (2010) 40 SOT 265 (ITd SB) (refer para 18 on\npage 242-245 of Case Law PB 2)\nBased on the above, the Ld. AO finally held that if the amalgamation had not taken\nplace, the Assessee would be liable to pay MAT and just because merger had taken\nplace, it should not alter the payment of tax. As the Assessee has not follow…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

ITA 1834/DEL/2021[20017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

…a determinative factor of the legislative intent, the foundational basis of any interpretation, is 0 be found from the words used by the Legislature itself. The principle is in fact well settled and trite (refer Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002} 255 ITR 147 (SC); and Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT [20051 278 ITR 546/148 Taxman 468 (Se). As explained in Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association (supra) (pg.17), the consequences cannot alter the meaning of a statutory provision where such meaning is plain and unambiguous, though could certainly help to fix its meaning in case of doubt and ambiguity. Th…

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1205/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

…a determinative factor of the legislative intent, the foundational basis of any interpretation, is 0 be found from the words used by the Legislature itself. The principle is in fact well settled and trite (refer Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002} 255 ITR 147 (SC); and Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT [20051 278 ITR 546/148 Taxman 468 (Se). As explained in Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association (supra) (pg.17), the consequences cannot alter the meaning of a statutory provision where such meaning is plain and unambiguous, though could certainly help to fix its meaning in case of doubt and ambiguity. Th…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SILICON ESTATES, BANGALORE

ITA 1534/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Silicon Estates Dcit No.14, 6Th Floor, Hm Geneva Central Circle-1(4) House C.R. Building, No.1, Queens Cunningham Road Vs. Road Bengaluru 560052 Bangalore-560001 Pan No :Abefs6150N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit M/S. Silicon Estates Central Circle-1(1)(1) No.14, 6Th Floor, Hm Geneva House Room No. 215, 2Nd Floor Cunningham Road Vs. Bmtc Building, Kormangala Bengaluru 560052 Bangalore – 560095 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 234BSection 250Section 80

…) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that the principle of proportionality is not applicable to clauses (e) and (f) of Section 80-IB(10) and thus, erred in not following the ratio of Padmasundara Rao (2002) 255 ITR 147 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that courts cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous?” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Partnership firm constituted vide Deed of Partnership dated 04.07.2005 & engaged in the business of Development and construction of residential and commercia…

M/S. SILICON ESTATES, ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGLAURU

ITA 1526/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Silicon Estates Dcit No.14, 6Th Floor, Hm Geneva Central Circle-1(4) House C.R. Building, No.1, Queens Cunningham Road Vs. Road Bengaluru 560052 Bangalore-560001 Pan No :Abefs6150N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit M/S. Silicon Estates Central Circle-1(1)(1) No.14, 6Th Floor, Hm Geneva House Room No. 215, 2Nd Floor Cunningham Road Vs. Bmtc Building, Kormangala Bengaluru 560052 Bangalore – 560095 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 234BSection 250Section 80

…) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that the principle of proportionality is not applicable to clauses (e) and (f) of Section 80-IB(10) and thus, erred in not following the ratio of Padmasundara Rao (2002) 255 ITR 147 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that courts cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous?” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Partnership firm constituted vide Deed of Partnership dated 04.07.2005 & engaged in the business of Development and construction of residential and commercia…

RADHIKA DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Amember & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…n to the contrary. The plain language of a statute must override any supposed intendment of the legislature and cannot be amended or stretched by court. The Hon’ble apex court in the case of Padmasundara Rao (DECD) And Others vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others 255 ITR 147 (SC) laid down that the first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislature must be found in the words used by legislature itself. That courts cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. Statute is the edict of legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative fact…

SYSMEX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. C.I.T. 15(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4454/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tikekar, C.A. & Shri Ashish Thakurdesai, C.A., A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 244ASection 80

…e legislature and if the language of a statute is clear and explicit, effect must be given to each word. The Hon’ble Apex court has time and again reinforced this rule of interpretation of statutes in its judgements, right from Padmasundara Rao vs State of TN 255 ITR 147(SC), Mohammad Vs CWT 224 ITR 672(SC) & Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs CIT 262 ITR 278(SC).In view of the same since the words used in section 80IC categorically state that the provisions of sub section 5 to section 80IA shall apply to the eligible undertaking or enterprise, they have to be read as such and applied to each undertaking, meaning thereby…

ZULA MERCHANDISC PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 68

…essee to explain the commercial prudence for making such huge investments. The additions thus have been made on the basis of circumstantial evidences and considering the preponderance of probabilities. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmasundra Rao v. State of T.N. 255 ITR 147 (SC) has held that circumstantial flexibility, e.g. one additional or different fact, may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases: “Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril…

MEGAPODE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 99/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rites Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…essee to explain the commercial prudence for making such huge investments. The additions thus have been made on the basis of circumstantial evidences and considering the preponderance of probabilities. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmasundra Rao v. State of T.N. 255 ITR 147 (SC) has held that circumstantial flexibility, e.g. one additional or different fact, may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases: “Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril…

MEGAPODE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 100/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rites Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…essee to explain the commercial prudence for making such huge investments. The additions thus have been made on the basis of circumstantial evidences and considering the preponderance of probabilities. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmasundra Rao v. State of T.N. 255 ITR 147 (SC) has held that circumstantial flexibility, e.g. one additional or different fact, may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases: “Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril…

GILT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1447/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

…essee to explain the commercial prudence for making such huge investments. The additions thus have been made on the basis of circumstantial evidences and considering the preponderance of probabilities. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmasundra Rao v. State of T.N. 255 ITR 147 (SC) has held that circumstantial flexibility, e.g. one additional or different fact, may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases: “Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril…

M/S. CORPORATE LEISURE & PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 652/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Shantilal G., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No.652/Bang/2024 M/s. Corporate Leisure & Property Development Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s. Corporate Leisure & Property Development Pvt. Ltd. No108/114, Oxford Towers ACIT 139 Airport Road Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Kodihalli Bangalore Bengaluru 560 008 PAN NO : AACCC3744Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Shantilal G., A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 O R D…

ACIT-19(1), MUMBAI vs. ADIHEMSHREE FINANCIAL, ROCKSIDE APARTMENT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 936/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

…ugh banking channels. The Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (supra) and referred to the preponderance of probability. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padmasundra Rao v. State of Tamilnadu [255 ITR 147] has held that circumstantial flexibility, example, one additional or different fact, make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. The relevant findings read as under:- “Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which relianc…

ACIT-19(1), MUMBAI vs. ADIHEMSHREE FINANCIAL, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 935/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

…ugh banking channels. The Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (supra) and referred to the preponderance of probability. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padmasundra Rao v. State of Tamilnadu [255 ITR 147] has held that circumstantial flexibility, example, one additional or different fact, make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. The relevant findings read as under:- “Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which relianc…

NAMOKAR BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…essee to explain the commercial prudence for making such huge investments. The additions thus have been made on the basis of circumstantial evidences and considering the preponderance of probabilities. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmasundra Rao v. State of T.N. 255 ITR 147 (SC) has held that circumstantial flexibility, e.g. one additional or different fact, may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases: “Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril…

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…se powers of an Assessing Officer. ii. The above stated decision has already been discussed in detail in relevant paragraphs above. 13. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padma Sundar Rao Vs. State of TN (2002) 255 ITR 147 SC, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgement as though they are words in a legislativ…

M/S. B.L. TAK AND SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(1) , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2622/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…essee to explain the commercial prudence for making such huge investments. The additions thus have been made on the basis of circumstantial evidences and considering the preponderance of probabilities. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmasundra Rao v. State of T.N. 255 ITR 147 (SC) has held that circumstantial flexibility, e.g. one additional or different fact, may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases: 7 I.T.A. No.2622/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 M/s B.L. Tak & Sons (HUF) “Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fa…

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1172/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri DhrunalBhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80

…y certified that such expenditure is outside approved facility it cannot be allowed. In this regards reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a bench of Five Judges in the case of Padmasundara Rao vs State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 and also in the case of Prakash Nath Khanna vs. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 1 (SC). "Once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be" Further reliance is placed on the judgment of II'AT [2012] 54 SOT 615 (MUM) / [2012] 24 taxmann.com 218…

Showing 1–20 of 123 · Page 1 of 7