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

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 474/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos.472 & 474 & C.O Nos.64 & 66/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd. 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- 700016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacc0457C (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Ms. Ruchira Lakhotia, ACA
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

…rpretation : - Orissa State Warehousino Corporation -vs,- CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC) - Prakash Nath Khanna and Another -vs.- CIT (2004) 266 ITR 1 (SC) - Smt. Tarulata Shyam & Othrs -vs.- CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC) - Padmasundara Rao vs. Slate of Tamil Nadu: 255 ITR 147 (SC) Apart from the above, it was also pointed out that DTC Bill 2013 has proposed expressly that additional depreciation would be allowed in the FY in which the P&M is used for the first time and those provisions are not made with retrospective effect. It was argued that the legislature has consciously not restricted the allowance of additional…

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 472/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos.472 & 474 & C.O Nos.64 & 66/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd. 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- 700016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacc0457C (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Ms. Ruchira Lakhotia, ACA
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

…rpretation : - Orissa State Warehousino Corporation -vs,- CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC) - Prakash Nath Khanna and Another -vs.- CIT (2004) 266 ITR 1 (SC) - Smt. Tarulata Shyam & Othrs -vs.- CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC) - Padmasundara Rao vs. Slate of Tamil Nadu: 255 ITR 147 (SC) Apart from the above, it was also pointed out that DTC Bill 2013 has proposed expressly that additional depreciation would be allowed in the FY in which the P&M is used for the first time and those provisions are not made with retrospective effect. It was argued that the legislature has consciously not restricted the allowance of additional…

Inder Mohan Khurana, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6553/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom.) 5. CIT v. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. 367 ITR 306 (Del.) 6. Sona Electronic Co. v. CIT 152 ITR 507(Del). 7. Abhishek Jain v. Income Tax Officer 405 ITR 1 (Del.) 8. Padamsundara Rao (DECD) and Others v. State of Tamilnadu and Others [2002] 255 ITR 147(S.C) 9. Returns & Jurisdiction 10. Sardar Baldev Sing v. CIT 40 ITR 605(S.C) 11. Section 64 of 1922Act Sr. No. Particulars 1. Assessment Order for A.Y. 2001-02 2. Assessment Order for A.Y. 2006-07 3 Letter dt. 28.06.2016 filed with CIT(A), assessee wiling to produce Mr. Solo for examination. 4. Notification regarding New Jurisdiction of Income-…

Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1519/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of D-16, 2Nd Floor, Nelson Chambers, Income Tax, No.115 Nelson Manickam Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai. Chennai 600 029. [Pan Aaacw 7724Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1519/CHNY/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2014-2015. M/s. Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of D-16, 2nd floor, Nelson Chambers, Income Tax, No.115 Nelson Manickam Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai. Chennai 600 029. [PAN AAACW 7724Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपील…

The Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

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

ITA 381/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

…and could have imposed 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 we refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in 255 ITR 147. Copy of the judgment is at running pages 13 to 18 of Annexure IV. Moreover it is not the function of the Court to supply a supposed omission, which can only be done by the Parliament (2013) 180 Company Cases 311. Copy of the judgment is at running pages 19 to 26 of Annexure V. 11.(i) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkatta in the case of AC…

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

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

ITA 239/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

…and could have imposed 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 we refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in 255 ITR 147. Copy of the judgment is at running pages 13 to 18 of Annexure IV. Moreover it is not the function of the Court to supply a supposed omission, which can only be done by the Parliament (2013) 180 Company Cases 311. Copy of the judgment is at running pages 19 to 26 of Annexure V. 11.(i) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkatta in the case of AC…

Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(It)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 5799/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Piyush ChhajjedFor Respondent: Miss. Deepika Arora (DR)
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “F” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/o. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) v. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: ABEPO5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Piyush…

M/S Globe Precision Industries Pvt. Ltd., Solan vs. ITO, Solan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA 871/CHD/2017 is

ITA 871/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vineet KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Alya, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80I

…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…

M/S Him Teknoforge Ltd, Baddi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Parwanoo

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA 871/CHD/2017 is

ITA 784/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vineet KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Alya, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80I

…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…

M/S Him Teknoforge Ltd., Baddi vs. DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA 871/CHD/2017 is

ITA 1180/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vineet KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Alya, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80I

…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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Railtel Corporation of India Ltd., Delhi

ITA 2743/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goel, CIT (DR)
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 80I

…. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges. ” iv) In respect of assesee's taking refuge under the case of Apollo tyres, the following observations in the case of Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu, (255 ITR 147 at page 153), are being relied. "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 are words in a legislative Page 8 of 51 ITA No.-2743/Del…

Swadesh Textiles P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5140/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Swadeshi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Ito-4(3)(4), Mumbai ¾, 1St Floor, Kapadia Vs. Chambers, 599, Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Mumbai- 400002. Pan No. Aagcs2102Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Snehal J. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 115JSection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…ile computing the book profits. 7.3 Because of the above facts, the present case of the assessee is distinguishable from the case laws referred and filed by the learned counsel which have been narrated at para 7 hereinbefore. In Padmasundra Rao v. State of TN 255 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Ram Narain 227 ITR 401; Govt. of India v. Jagadish 221 ITR 338, it has been 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. That circumstantial flexibility, e.g. one additional or different fact, may make…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…ion of his adopting or choosing one view over the other does not arise. The aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court do not, in our view, help the assessee; rather they go against the assessee. 22. In Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that ". . . There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morrin in Herrington v. British Railways Board [1972] 2 WL…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…ion of his adopting or choosing one view over the other does not arise. The aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court do not, in our view, help the assessee; rather they go against the assessee. 22. In Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that ". . . There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morrin in Herrington v. British Railways Board [1972] 2 WL…

DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh vs. Smt. Priya Garg, Panchkula

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 989/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy.Cit Vs. Smt. Priya Garg, Central Circle-Ii H.No. 89,Sector-7 Chandigarh Panchkula

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 132Section 139Section 153Section 153A

…e case the CIT(A) right in not following the Hon'ble SC judgment on interpretation of statue in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam & Others vs. CIT (108 ITR 345), Keshavji Ravji And Co vd. CIT (183 ITR 1). Padamsundara Rao (Deed.) & others vs State of Tamil Nadu 255 ITR 147, Prakash Nath Khanna & Others vs CIT 266 ITR 1, Institute of Charted Accountants of India vs. Price water House 93 Taxman 588? x) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is right in not following the Hon'ble HC judgment on the issue of additions in search case u/s 153A in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493 (De…

DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh vs. M/S Dhg Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA 990/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe D.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Dhg Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-Ii, Sco 49-50, Sector 26, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aadcd1364Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gulshan Raj, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…case the CIT(A); right in not following the Hon'ble SC judgment on interpretation of statue in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam & Others vs. CIT (108 ITR 345), Keshavji Ravji And Co vd CIT (183 ITR 1). Padamsundara Rao (Deed.) & others vs State of Tamil Nadu 255 ITR 147, Prakash Nath Khanna & Others vs CIT 266 ITR 1, Institute of Charted Accountants of India vs. Price water House 93 Taxman 588? x) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is right in not following the Hon'ble HC judgment on the issue of additions in search case u/s 153A in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493 (De…

DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh vs. Sh. R.K. Garg, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1191/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 139Section 153A

…he case the CIT(A) right in not following the Hon'ble SC judgment on interpretation of statue in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam & Others vs. CIT (108ITR 345), Keshavji Ravji And Co vd. CIT (183 ITR 1). Padamsundara Rao (Deed.) & others vs State of Tamil Nadu 255 ITR 147, Prakash Nath Khanna & Others vs CIT 266 ITR 1, Institute of Charted Accountants of India vs. Price water House 93 Taxman 588? x) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is right in not following the Hon'ble HC judgment on the issue of additions in search case u/s 153A in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493 (De…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Serum Institute of India Research Foundation, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 621/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T.B. Vijaya Reddy and Shri Mukesh Jha, CIT-DRsFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Abhyankar
Section 10(21)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 2(24)(iia)Section 35(1)(ii)

…ntary contributions. This case has not enunciated any clear principle, as there is no discussion on the issue and therefore should not be taken as a binding precedent in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Padma Sunder Rao Vs. State of Tamilnadu 255 ITR 147 (SC). 7.4. Reliance was also placed on the judgment in the case of Pentafour Software Employees Welfare Foundation as seen in the appeal order but there is no citation to download the judgment. A close look at the name of the foundation itself reveals that it is not a charitable organisation and therefore, the provisions of sec. 2 (24)(iia) do n…

DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 153/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…AR, the decision in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Limited (supra) cannot come to the rescue of the revenue. The ld. AR cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao (Decd.) & Ors vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors reported in 255 ITR 147 (SC) at page 148 to bring to our notice that a change 45 A.Yrs.2011-12 even on a single fact may change the ratio of the entire decision and so the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision is distinguishable and cannot be taken as a precedent to adjudicate the issue before us. 12.7. According to the ld. AR, the Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Proli…

Eih Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 110/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…AR, the decision in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Limited (supra) cannot come to the rescue of the revenue. The ld. AR cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao (Decd.) & Ors vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors reported in 255 ITR 147 (SC) at page 148 to bring to our notice that a change 45 A.Yrs.2011-12 even on a single fact may change the ratio of the entire decision and so the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision is distinguishable and cannot be taken as a precedent to adjudicate the issue before us. 12.7. According to the ld. AR, the Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Proli…