Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu

255 ITR 147Supreme Court of India2002#842 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 367,518 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

Backbone Enterprise Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Dy. Commr. Income Tax, Cen. Circle-II, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 126/RJT/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2008-09 Backbone Enterprise Ltd. The Deputy M-43, Gujarat Housing Commissioner of Income- Board, Kalawad Road, Vs Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot Rajkot PAN: AABCB9255E (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year 2008-09 The Assistant Backbone Enterprise Ltd. Commissioner of Income- M-43, Gujarat Housing Tax, Central Circle-2, Vs Board, Kalawad Road, Rajkot Rajkot (Appellant) PAN: AABCB9255E (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R. Revenu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2400/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…t is similar on all four corners of facts and law. A slight difference in fact or in law will not make a valid binding precedence. In this regard, we may refer to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147, wherein it was held that circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. 23. In view of the altered position of law with effect from 1-4-1989 with the introduction of concept of deemed escaped income which seems to have not attracted the attention of the Hon'ble Madras…

M/S. Gera Realty Estates, Pune vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2050/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2080/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TyagiFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 80I

…d 10 flats are exceeding the prescribed area of 1500 Sq. Ft. and holding the assessee is not entitled for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. He submits that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 255 ITR 147 clearly held that the Courts cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the Legislature itself. 6 ITA…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -1(3), Pune vs. M/S. Gera Realty Estates, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2080/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2080/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TyagiFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 80I

…d 10 flats are exceeding the prescribed area of 1500 Sq. Ft. and holding the assessee is not entitled for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. He submits that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 255 ITR 147 clearly held that the Courts cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the Legislature itself. 6 ITA…

Shri Pavan M.Sharma L/H of Late Mahesh L.Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The ADIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2772/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…tya V. Birla [1988] 170 ITR 137, held that when the literal meaning is clear, one need not bother any more for the intention or the purpose. The five Judges Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tami Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 while discussing the period of limitation for declaration, the court reaffirmed the literal rule and held that the language of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, is plain and unambiguous; there is no scope for reading something into it. It may be useful to refer to the Ahmedabad special bench Tribunal decision in the case of AMP Spg. &…

Shri Pavan M.Sharma L/H of Late Mahesh L.Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The ADIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2771/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…tya V. Birla [1988] 170 ITR 137, held that when the literal meaning is clear, one need not bother any more for the intention or the purpose. The five Judges Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tami Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 while discussing the period of limitation for declaration, the court reaffirmed the literal rule and held that the language of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, is plain and unambiguous; there is no scope for reading something into it. It may be useful to refer to the Ahmedabad special bench Tribunal decision in the case of AMP Spg. &…

Shri Pavan M.Sharma L/H of Late Mahesh L.Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1032/AHD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…tya V. Birla [1988] 170 ITR 137, held that when the literal meaning is clear, one need not bother any more for the intention or the purpose. The five Judges Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tami Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 while discussing the period of limitation for declaration, the court reaffirmed the literal rule and held that the language of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, is plain and unambiguous; there is no scope for reading something into it. It may be useful to refer to the Ahmedabad special bench Tribunal decision in the case of AMP Spg. &…

Shri Pavan M.Sharma L/H of Late Mahesh L.Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/AHD/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…tya V. Birla [1988] 170 ITR 137, held that when the literal meaning is clear, one need not bother any more for the intention or the purpose. The five Judges Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tami Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 while discussing the period of limitation for declaration, the court reaffirmed the literal rule and held that the language of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, is plain and unambiguous; there is no scope for reading something into it. It may be useful to refer to the Ahmedabad special bench Tribunal decision in the case of AMP Spg. &…

Shri Pavan M.Sharma L/H of Late Mahesh L.Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…tya V. Birla [1988] 170 ITR 137, held that when the literal meaning is clear, one need not bother any more for the intention or the purpose. The five Judges Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tami Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 while discussing the period of limitation for declaration, the court reaffirmed the literal rule and held that the language of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, is plain and unambiguous; there is no scope for reading something into it. It may be useful to refer to the Ahmedabad special bench Tribunal decision in the case of AMP Spg. &…

Shri Pavan M.Sharma L/H of Late Mahesh L.Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1029/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 22Section 234BSection 271Section 271DSection 27ISection 57Section 68

…tya V. Birla [1988] 170 ITR 137, held that when the literal meaning is clear, one need not bother any more for the intention or the purpose. The five Judges Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tami Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 while discussing the period of limitation for declaration, the court reaffirmed the literal rule and held that the language of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, is plain and unambiguous; there is no scope for reading something into it. It may be useful to refer to the Ahmedabad special bench Tribunal decision in the case of AMP Spg. &…

M/S Ambika Transport Co vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 188/JAB/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 40Section 44A

…ing Corporation v. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC); CIT v. Tara Agencies [2007] 292 ITR 444 (SC)). Not so doing would be to usurp the legislative function by the courts which is impermissible, as explained in (Padmasundara Rao (Decd) v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC). Rather, taxing statutes, it is again well-settled, are to be strictly construed. Further still, as explained by the Apex Court in CBI vs. Keshub Mahindra & Others [in Curative Petition Nos. 39- 42 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1672-1675 of 1996, dated 11/5/2011], that no decision by any court, including itself, can be read in the manner a…

M/S Ambika Transport Co vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 187/JAB/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 40Section 44A

…ing Corporation v. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC); CIT v. Tara Agencies [2007] 292 ITR 444 (SC)). Not so doing would be to usurp the legislative function by the courts which is impermissible, as explained in (Padmasundara Rao (Decd) v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC). Rather, taxing statutes, it is again well-settled, are to be strictly construed. Further still, as explained by the Apex Court in CBI vs. Keshub Mahindra & Others [in Curative Petition Nos. 39- 42 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1672-1675 of 1996, dated 11/5/2011], that no decision by any court, including itself, can be read in the manner a…

Nikhil Mohine, Parasia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 38/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s [2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC)). The law is an edict of the legislature, with the duty of the courts being to discern the legislative intent, which is to be the foundational basis of all interpretative exercise (PadmasundaraRao (Decd) v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC);Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 278 ITR 546 (SC)). If not in the language in which the law is couched, where is the legislative intent to be found, so that where the law is clear, ITA Nos. 37& 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19& 2019-20) Nikhil Mohinev. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT as it indeed is in th…

Nikhil Mohine, Chhindwara vs. DCIT, CPC, Benguluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 37/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…[2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC)). The law is an edict of the legislature, with the duty of the courts being to discern the legislative intent, which is to be the foundational basis of all interpretative exercise (Padmasundara Rao (Decd) v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC); Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 278 ITR 546 (SC)). If not in the language in which the law is couched, where is the legislative intent to be found, so that where the 11 ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19 & 2019-20) Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT law is clear, as it indeed i…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

…lated to give a predetermined yield. That is, the said option is inconsistent with investment in risk capital?” Comments by Dabur Invest Corp. 9. At the outset, it is brought to your kind notice that in the case of Padmasundara Rao vs. State of Tamil Nadu in 255 ITR 147, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has cautioned while following a precedent in following words: “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 judgment as though they…

Jagdish U. Thackersay, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5045/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 54F

…lant had purchased a residential property i.e. House No. 1057 of 6700 sq. ft. and House No. 1059 of 400 sq. ft. along with the land appurtenant thereto and claimed deduction u/s 54F against the sale of long term shares. 7.4 In Padmasundra Rao v. State of TN 255 ITR 147 (SC), the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that reliance should not be placed on a decision without discussing how the factual situation fits in with the factual situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Also it was held therein that circumstantial flexibility, e.g. one additional or different fact, may make a…

The ACIT, (OSD)Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Torrent Power Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 1668/AHD/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChowkshiFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘बी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1668/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) And CO No.178/Ahd/2012 – AY 2006-07 (in ITA No.1668/Ahd/2012 – AY 2006-07) The ACIT(OSD) M/s.Torrent Power Limited बनाम/ Circle-8, Torrent House Vs. Ahmedabad Nr.Dinesh Hall Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCT 0294 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objector) Revenue by : Shri Sa…

The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2/COCH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype JohnFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 10

…such a restriction at the time of drafting. This can only be seen as a conscious omission to give a beneficial interpretation for the purpose of growth and development In this connection please refer to the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in 255 ITR 147 in the case of Padma Sundara Rao and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. Relevant extracts annexed hereto as Annexure II which is at pages 9 to 10. 2(i) It can be seen that the expenditure of Rs.3,11,18,84Sf- includes Replanting Expenses and Maintenance Expenses. The Replanting Expenses, mentioned above, relates to the actual cost of replanting incu…

The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1/COCH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype JohnFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 10

…such a restriction at the time of drafting. This can only be seen as a conscious omission to give a beneficial interpretation for the purpose of growth and development In this connection please refer to the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in 255 ITR 147 in the case of Padma Sundara Rao and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. Relevant extracts annexed hereto as Annexure II which is at pages 9 to 10. 2(i) It can be seen that the expenditure of Rs.3,11,18,84Sf- includes Replanting Expenses and Maintenance Expenses. The Replanting Expenses, mentioned above, relates to the actual cost of replanting incu…

M/S.Supras Metals Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1395/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1395/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…the case in which it is rendered and, while applying the decision to a later case, courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision." Again in the case of Padmasundara Rao Deed. & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2002) 255 ITR 147, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, circumstantial flexibility, one additional fact or different fact may 19 I.T.A. No. 1395/Mum/2018 M/s Supras Metals Ltd. make a world of difference between conclusion in two cases. Therefore, Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fac…